Developmental change in prefrontal cortex recruitment supports the emergence of value-guided memory

Memories of past experiences guide our behavior, promoting adaptive action selection throughout our lives (Biderman et al., 2020). But not all experiences are equally useful to remember — the information we encounter varies in its utility in helping us gain future reward. By adulthood, individuals demonstrate the ability to prioritize memory for information that is likely to be most rewarding in the future (Adcock et al., 2006; Cohen et al., 2019b; Cohen et al., 2014; Hennessee et al., 2019; Shigemune et al., 2014; Shohamy and Adcock, 2010; Wittmann et al., 2005). Children, however, demonstrate weaker memory selectivity, often remembering relatively inconsequential information at the expense of higher value items or associations (Castel et al., 2011; Hanten et al., 2007; Nussenbaum et al., 2020). Behavioral studies have found that the use of value to guide encoding and retrieval processes emerges and strengthens gradually throughout childhood and adolescence, promoting more efficient acquisition of useful knowledge with increasing age (Castel et al., 2011; Hanten et al., 2007; Nussenbaum et al., 2020). It is unclear, however, how changes in brain activity support this observed emergence of motivated memory. Although a large literature has examined developmental change in the neural mechanisms that support memory from early childhood to young adulthood (Ghetti and Fandakova, 2020; Ofen, 2012; Shing et al., 2010), no prior studies have investigated how the developing brain prioritizes memories based on their relative utility.

Prioritizing valuable information in memory requires both determining the value of information and strategically modulating encoding accordingly. The vast majority of adult studies have focused only on the strategic use of value to guide memory — in most studies of motivated memory, determining the value of information is trivial for participants because experimenters label to-be-remembered information with explicit value cues (e.g. dollar signs, stars, point amounts) (Adcock et al., 2006; Castel et al., 2011; Cohen et al., 2014; Murty et al., 2017). However, in real-world contexts, individuals must derive the value of information from the statistics of their environments. In a recent behavioral study (Nussenbaum et al., 2020), we demonstrated that young adults could use naturalistic value signals to prioritize memory for useful information. Specifically, we manipulated information value via item frequency. Across many environments, the frequency of encountering something in the past predicts the frequency of encountering it in the future. In this way, frequency can signal information utility (Anderson and Milson, 1989; Anderson and Schooler, 1991; Liu et al., 2021; Pachur et al., 2014; Rich and Gureckis, 2018; Stevens et al., 2016) — if individuals are likely to encounter something often in the future, encoding information about it is likely to be valuable. For example, remembering the supermarket aisle of an ingredient with which one often cooks is likely to facilitate greater reward gain than remembering the aisle of an ingredient one almost never uses. In our prior study, we translated this feature of real-world environments to a laboratory task in which individuals could learn the potential reward value of associative information by first learning the relative frequency of items in their environments. We found that individuals exploited these naturalistic value signals and demonstrated better memory for information associated with high- relative to low-frequency items. Critically, this pattern of results varied with age; the strategic prioritization of high-value information in memory increased from age 7 to age 25 (Nussenbaum et al., 2020). It is unclear, however, if developmental improvements in memory prioritization stemmed from differences in learning the relative value of information based on environmental statistics or using learned value signals to strategically prioritize memory. Each of these processes likely engages separable neural systems.

Deriving value from the structure of the environment first requires the learning of statistical regularities. In the case of learning the frequency with which one might need to use information, individuals must differentiate novel occurrences (e.g. cooking with a rare ingredient) from oft-repeated experiences (e.g. cooking with a common food). Neurally, medial temporal lobe regions may support sensitivity to item repetitions. The parahippocampal cortex in particular demonstrates reduced responsivity to repeated relative to novel presentations of items (i.e. ‘repetition suppression’) (Gonsalves et al., 2005; Kirchhoff et al., 2000; Köhler et al., 2005; O'Kane et al., 2005; Turk-Browne et al., 2006). Although some accounts of repetition suppression suggest that attenuated responses simply indicate neural ‘fatigue,’ the phenomenon has also been shown to be sensitive to the statistical context of the environment, suggesting that suppression may reflect stimulus expectation and index learning of environmental regularities (Auksztulewicz and Friston, 2016). Repetition suppression has also been shown to relate to implicit memory for repeated items (Ward et al., 2013). Paralleling their robust implicit learning abilities (Amso and Davidow, 2012; Finn et al., 2016; Meulemans et al., 1998), children and adolescents also demonstrate neural repetition suppression effects (Nordt et al., 2016; Scherf et al., 2011; Turi et al., 2015), although repetition suppression — and the ability to learn the statistical structure of the environment — may increase throughout childhood (Scherf et al., 2011). When individuals need to remember information associated with previously encountered stimuli (e.g. the grocery store aisle where an ingredient is located), frequency knowledge may be instantiated as value signals, engaging regions along the mesolimbic dopamine pathway that have been implicated in reward anticipation and the encoding of stimulus and action values. These areas include the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and the ventral and dorsal striatum (Adcock et al., 2006; Liljeholm and O'Doherty, 2012; Shigemune et al., 2014).

Using these learned value signals to guide memory likely requires cognitive control (Castel et al., 2007; Cohen et al., 2014). Value responses in the striatum may signal the need for increased engagement of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) (Botvinick and Braver, 2015), which supports the implementation of strategic control. Enhanced recruitment of control processes promotes the use of deeper and more elaborative encoding strategies (Cohen et al., 2019b; Cohen et al., 2014; Miotto et al., 2006; Uncapher and Wagner, 2009) as well as the selection and maintenance of effective retrieval and post-retrieval monitoring strategies (Libby and Lipe, 1992; Scimeca and Badre, 2012), which may contribute to better memory for high-value information. The use of value to proactively upregulate cognitive control responses improves throughout development, though the specific trajectory of improvement may relate to the control demands of a given task (Davidow et al., 2018). Selectively enhancing the use of encoding and retrieval strategies requires not only tight coordination between subcortical regions involved in value processing and prefrontal areas implicated in control (Murty and Adcock, 2014), but also an available repertoire of memory strategies to implement. Even in the absence of value cues, children and adolescents demonstrate reduced use of strategic control (Bjorkland et al., 2009) and reduced lateral prefrontal engagement during encoding (Ghetti et al., 2010; Ghetti and Fandakova, 2020; Shing et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2018), suggesting that the availability of mnemonic control strategies may increase with age.

Taken together, prior work suggests that adaptive memory requires the recruitment and coordination of multiple neural systems, including mechanisms for learning environmental structure, representing value, and engaging strategic control, all of which may undergo marked changes from childhood to adulthood. Here, we examined how the development of these neurocognitive processes supports the emergence and strengthening of value-guided memory from childhood to young adulthood. To pinpoint loci of developmental differences in adaptive memory prioritization, we combined our novel motivated memory experiment (Nussenbaum et al., 2020) with functional neuroimaging. During the task, participants first learned the frequency of items in their environments, and then learned information associated with each item. Importantly, we structured our task such that the frequency with which participants first experienced each item indicated the frequency with which they would be asked to report the information associated with it, and therefore, the number of points they could earn by remembering the association. Immediately following encoding, we administered a memory test in which participants had to select each item’s correct associate. Because frequency of exposure to an item may facilitate subsequent associative memory even when it does not signal the value of information (Popov and Reder, 2020; Reder et al., 2016), in our prior behavioral study (Nussenbaum et al., 2020), we examined the effects of item frequency on subsequent associative memory in two contexts: one in which item frequency signaled information value and one in which it did not. Critically, we found that with our experimental design, frequency only facilitated memory when it signaled the value of remembering information — increased item exposure did not in and of itself enhance subsequent associative memory. Thus, in the present fMRI study, we focused only on the condition in which item frequency did indicate the potential reward that could be earned for remembering associations.

We examined neural activation during the learning of item frequency, and when participants were asked to encode and retrieve information associated with high- vs. low-frequency items. We hypothesized that while participants across our entire age range would demonstrate sensitivity to the frequency of items in their environments, with increasing age, participants would show improvements in transforming this experiential learning into value signals and modulating the engagement of strategic control processes during encoding. Neurally, we expected that at encoding and retrieval, the recognition of information value would be reflected in increased striatal activation in response to associations involving high- vs. low-frequency items, while the engagement of strategic control would be reflected in increased activation in lateral prefrontal cortex. Further, we hypothesized that increased recruitment of the striatum and prefrontal cortex during encoding and retrieval of high- vs. low-value information would underpin the strengthening of adaptive memory prioritization from childhood to early adulthood.

Prioritizing memory for useful information is essential throughout individuals’ lifetimes, but no prior work has investigated the development of the neural mechanisms that support value-guided memory prioritization from childhood to adulthood. The goal of the present study was to characterize how developmental differences in the neurocognitive processes that support both the learning and use of information value support improvements in adaptive memory from childhood to adulthood. In line with studies of motivated memory in adults (Cohen et al., 2014), we found that during encoding and retrieval, high- relative to low-value stimuli elicited increased activation in regions sensitive to value and motivational salience, including the caudate (Delgado et al., 2004), and those associated with strategic control processes, including the lateral PFC (Badre and Wagner, 2007; Cole and Schneider, 2007; Power and Petersen, 2013). Further, replicating previous work, we found that value-guided memory selectivity improved across childhood and adolescence (Castel et al., 2011; Hanten et al., 2007; Nussenbaum et al., 2020). Critically, here we demonstrate that increased engagement of the lateral PFC during encoding mediated the relation between age and memory selectivity. This relation was specific to the lateral PFC — although the caudate similarly demonstrated increased activation during encoding of high- vs. low-value information, value-based modulation of caudate activation did not vary as a function of age and did not relate to memory selectivity.

Two different signatures of value-learning predicted subsequent associative memory: Individuals demonstrated better memory for associations involving items that elicited stronger repetition suppression as well as for items that they reported as being more frequent. Moreover, the relation of these learning signals to memory performance varied with age. While all participants demonstrated a similar relation between repetition suppression and subsequent associative memory, the association between explicit frequency reports and memory was greater in older participants. These divergent developmental trajectories suggest that the influence of learned value on memory arises through distinct cognitive processes. One possibility is that while explicit beliefs about information value triggered the engagement of strategic control, stimulus familiarity (as indexed by repetition suppression [Gonsalves et al., 2005]) may have facilitated encoding of novel associations, even in the absence of controlled strategy use. Indeed, prior work suggests that stronger memory traces for constituent components enhance associative memory (Chalmers and Humphreys, 2003; Popov and Reder, 2020; Reder et al., 2016). However, in our previous behavioral work (Nussenbaum et al., 2020), we found that removing the relation between item frequency and reward value eliminated the memory benefit for associations involving high-frequency items, suggesting that stimulus familiarity itself did not account for the influence of item frequency on memory in our task. Still, when frequency does predict value, stimulus familiarity may serve as a proxy for information utility. This familiarity signal may exert age-invariant effects on subsequent memory, whereas explicit beliefs about item frequency may more strongly facilitate subsequent memory with increasing age.

Importantly, although we observed age-related differences in participants’ learning of the structure of their environments, the strengthening of the relation between frequency reports and associative memory with increasing age suggests that age differences in learning cannot fully account for age differences in value-guided memory. Even when accounting for individual differences in participants’ explicit knowledge of the structure of the environment, older participants demonstrated a stronger relation between their beliefs about item frequency and associative memory, suggesting that they used their beliefs to guide memory to a greater degree than younger participants. In addition, we continued to observe a robust interaction between age and frequency condition on associative memory, even when controlling for age-related differences in the accuracy of both online frequency learning and explicit frequency reports. Thus, although we observed age differences in the learning of environmental regularities and in their influence on subsequent associative memory encoding, our developmental memory effects cannot be fully explained by differences in initial learning.

Our neural results further suggest that developmental differences in memory were driven by both knowledge of the structure of the environment and use of that knowledge to guide encoding. Specifically, we observed age-related increases in both overall PFC engagement as well as its value-based modulation, which may reflect developmental differences in the engagement of strategic control. Our finding that lateral prefrontal cortex activation during encoding of high- vs. low-value information may underpin memory selectivity is also in line with prior studies of motivated memory in older adults (Cohen et al., 2016). Older adults have been shown to demonstrate decreased neural activation in response to value cues (Cohen et al., 2016; Geddes et al., 2018) but preserved memory selectivity (Castel, 2007; Castel et al., 2002; Cohen et al., 2016) supported by the strategic recruitment of the left lateral PFC during encoding of high- vs. low-value information (Cohen et al., 2016). The PFC may support enhanced attention (Uncapher et al., 2011; Uncapher and Wagner, 2009) and semantic elaboration (Kirchhoff and Buckner, 2006) during encoding, and more focused (Wais et al., 2012) and organized search and selection (Badre and Wagner, 2007; Yu et al., 2018) during retrieval. From childhood to young adulthood, individuals demonstrate improvements in the implementation of strategic memory processes (Bjorkland et al., 2009; Yu et al., 2018), which are paralleled by increases in PFC recruitment during both encoding and retrieval (Ghetti et al., 2010; Ghetti and Fandakova, 2020; Ofen et al., 2007; Shing et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2018). In line with this prior work, we similarly observed age-related improvements in overall memory performance and in prefrontal recruitment during encoding and retrieval of novel associations.

The development of adaptive memory requires not only the implementation of encoding and retrieval strategies, but also the flexibility to up- or down-regulate the engagement of control in response to momentary fluctuations in information value (Castel et al., 2007; Castel et al., 2013; Hennessee et al., 2017). Importantly, value-based modulation of lateral PFC engagement during encoding mediated the relation between age and memory selectivity, suggesting that developmental change in both the representation of learned value and value-guided cognitive control may underpin the emergence of adaptive memory prioritization. Prior work examining other neurocognitive processes, including response inhibition (Insel et al., 2017) and selective attention (Störmer et al., 2014), has similarly found that increases in the flexible upregulation of control in response to value cues enhance goal-directed behavior across development (Davidow et al., 2018), and may depend on the engagement of both striatal and prefrontal circuitry (Hallquist et al., 2018; Insel et al., 2017). Here, we extend these past findings to the domain of memory, demonstrating that value signals derived from the structure of the environment increasingly elicit prefrontal cortex engagement and strengthen goal-directed encoding across childhood and into adolescence.

Further, we also demonstrate that in the absence of explicit value cues, the engagement of prefrontal control processes may reflect beliefs about information value that are learned through experience. Here, we found that differential PFC activation during encoding of high- vs. low-value information reflected individual and age-related differences in beliefs about the structure of the environment; participants who represented the average frequencies of the low- and high-frequency items as further apart also demonstrated greater value-based modulation of lateral PFC activation. It is important to note, however, that we collected explicit frequency reports after associative encoding and retrieval. Thus, the relation between PFC activation and explicit frequency reports may be bidirectional — while participants may have increased the recruitment of cognitive control processes to better encode information they believed was more valuable, the engagement of more elaborative or deeper encoding strategies that led to stronger memory traces may have also increased participants’ subjective sense of an item’s frequency (Jonides and Naveh-Benjamin, 1987).

During retrieval, we continued to observe increased activation of the caudate and dlPFC for high- vs. low-value pairs. However, this activation did not significantly vary as a function of memory difference scores or age, suggesting that the developmental differences in value-guided memory that we observed were likely driven by age-related change in encoding processes.

We found that memory prioritization varied with quadratic age, and our follow-up tests probing the quadratic age effect did not reveal evidence for significant age-related change in memory prioritization between late adolescence and early adulthood. However, in our prior behavioral work using a very similar paradigm (Nussenbaum et al., 2020), we found that memory prioritization varied with linear age only. In line with theoretical proposals (Davidow et al., 2018), subtle differences in the control demands between the two tasks (e.g. reducing the number of ‘foils’ presented on each trial of the memory test here relative to our prior study), may have shifted the age range across which we observed differences in behavior, with the more demanding variant of our task showing more linear age-related improvements into early adulthood. In addition, the specific control demands of our task may have also influenced the age at which value-guided memory emerged. Future studies should test whether younger children can modulate encoding based on the value of information if the mnemonic demands of the task are simpler.

One important caveat is that our study was cross-sectional — it will be important to replicate our findings in a longitudinal sample to measure more directly how developmental changes in cognitive control within an individual contribute to changes in their ability to selectively encode useful information. Our mediation results, in particular, must be interpreted with caution, as simulations have demonstrated that in cross-sectional samples, variables can emerge as significant mediators of age-related change due largely to statistical artifact (Hofer et al., 2006; Lindenberger et al., 2011). Indeed, our finding that PFC activation mediates the relation between age and value-guided memory does not necessarily imply that within an individual, PFC development leads to improvements in memory selectivity. Longitudinal work in which individuals’ neural activity and memory performance is sampled densely within developmental windows of interest is needed to elucidate the complex relations between age, brain development, and behavior (Hofer et al., 2006; Lindenberger et al., 2011).

We did not find evidence to support two of our predictions. First, although we initially hypothesized that both the ventral and dorsal striatum may be involved in encoding of high-value information, the activation we observed was largely within the dorsal striatum, a region that may reflect the value of goal-directed actions (Liljeholm and O'Doherty, 2012). In our task, rather than each stimulus acquiring intrinsic value during frequency learning, participants may have represented the value of the ‘action’ of remembering each pair during encoding. Second, we did not observe differences in hippocampal engagement during encoding or retrieval of high- vs. low-value associates. This is somewhat surprising, as prior work has suggested that value cues bolster memory through their influence on medial temporal lobe activity (Adcock et al., 2006). However, because our task required the use of learned value signals, memory retrieval processes may have been required on every encoding trial to recall the frequency of each item. Thus, all items presented at encoding may have triggered the engagement of hippocampal-dependent retrieval processes (Squire, 1992) that underpin many forms of memory-guided behavior including attention (Stokes et al., 2012; Summerfield et al., 2006) and decision-making (Murty et al., 2016; Shadlen and Shohamy, 2016; Wang et al., 2020). Further, in line with prior work (Davachi, 2006), we did observe increased activation in the hippocampus during encoding of associations that were subsequently remembered vs. those that were subsequently forgotten. Medial temporal activation, including hippocampal activation, may thus more strongly reflect successful memory formation — whether or not it was facilitated by value — whereas the caudate and lateral prefrontal cortex may be more sensitive to fluctuations in the engagement of value-guided cognitive control.

There are multiple routes through which value signals influence memory (Cohen et al., 2019b), and in many contexts, reward-motivated memory may not require strategic control. Value anticipation and reward delivery lead to dopaminergic release in the VTA, which projects not only to corticostriatal circuits that implement goal-directed strategy selection (Liljeholm and O'Doherty, 2012), but also directly to the hippocampus and medial temporal lobes (Adcock et al., 2006; Lisman and Grace, 2005; Murty et al., 2017; Shohamy and Adcock, 2010; Stanek et al., 2019). Given the earlier development of subcortically restricted circuitry relative to the more protracted development of cortical-subcortical pathways (Somerville and Casey, 2010), it may be the case that the direct influence of reward on memory develops earlier than the controlled pathway we studied here. Rather than eliciting strategic control through incentivizing successful memory, this pathway can be engaged through direct delivery of rewards or reinforcement signals at the time of encoding (Ergo et al., 2020; Jang et al., 2019; Rosenbaum et al., 2020; Rouhani et al., 2018). In one such study, adolescents demonstrated greater reward-based modulation of hippocampal-striatal connectivity than adults, and the strength of this connectivity predicted reward-related memory (Davidow et al., 2016). However, other studies have not found evidence for developmental change in the influence of valenced outcomes on memory (Cohen et al., 2019a; Katzman and Hartley, 2020). The influence of different motivational and reward signals on memory across development may not be straightforward — individual and developmental differences in neurocognitive processes including sensitivity to valenced feedback (Ngo et al., 2019; Rosenbaum et al., 2020), curiosity (Fandakova and Gruber, 2021), and emotional processing (Adelman and Estes, 2013; Eich and Castel, 2016) may interact, leading to complex relations between age, motivation, and memory performance. Further work is needed to characterize both the influence of different types of reward signals on memory across development, as well as the development of the neural pathways that underlie age-related change in behavior.

The present study contributes to our understanding of the neurocognitive mechanisms that support memory across development. Specifically, we addressed the question of how motivated memory may operate in the absence of explicit value cues by examining the development of the neurocognitive mechanisms that support the learning and use of information value to guide encoding and retrieval. The present findings suggest that while development is marked by improvements in the ability to learn about the statistical structure of the environment, the emergence of adaptive memory also depends centrally on age-related differences in prefrontal control. Our findings demonstrate that prefrontal cortex development has implications not just for general memory processes but for the selective prioritization of useful information — a key component of adaptive memory throughout the lifespan.

Task code, behavioral data, and analysis code are available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/2fkbj/ Unthresholded z-statistic maps from the neuroimaging analyses are available on Neurovault: https://neurovault.org/collections/BUMNZQXA/ BIDS-formatted neuroimaging data are available on Open Neuro: https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds003499.

1. 1. Nussenbaum K
   2. Hartley CA

   (2021) Open Science Framework

   ID 2fkb. Developmental change in prefrontal cortex recruitment supports the emergence of value-guided memory.

   https://osf.io/2fkbj/
2. 1. Nussenbaum K

   (2021) OpenNeuro

   Developmental change in prefrontal cortex recruitment supports the emergence of value-guided memory.

   https://doi.org/10.18112/openneuro.ds003499.v1.0.1

1. 1. Adcock RA
   2. Thangavel A
   3. Whitfield-Gabrieli S
   4. Knutson B
   5. Gabrieli JD

   (2006) Reward-motivated learning: mesolimbic activation precedes memory formation

   Neuron 50:507–517.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.03.036

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Adelman JS
   2. Estes Z

   (2013) Emotion and memory: a recognition advantage for positive and negative words independent of arousal

   Cognition 129:530–535.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.014

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Amso D
   2. Davidow J

   (2012) The development of implicit learning from infancy to adulthood: item frequencies, relations, and cognitive flexibility

   Developmental Psychobiology 54:664–673.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20587

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Anderson JR
   2. Milson R

   (1989) Human memory: an adaptive perspective

   Psychological Review 96:703–719.

   https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.703

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Anderson JR
   2. Schooler LJ

   (1991) Reflections of the environment in memory

   Psychological Science 2:396–408.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00174.x

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Auksztulewicz R
   2. Friston K

   (2016) Repetition suppression and its contextual determinants in predictive coding

   Cortex 80:125–140.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.11.024

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Badre D
   2. Wagner AD

   (2007) Left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and the cognitive control of memory

   Neuropsychologia 45:2883–2901.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.06.015

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Barr DJ
   2. Levy R
   3. Scheepers C
   4. Tily HJ

   (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal

   Journal of Memory and Language 68:255–278.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Biderman N
   2. Bakkour A
   3. Shohamy D

   (2020) What are memories for? the Hippocampus bridges past experience with future decisions

   Trends in Cognitive Sciences 24:542–556.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.04.004

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. Book

    1. Bjorkland DF
    2. Dukes C
    3. Brown DR

    (2009) The development of memory strategies

    In: Courage M, Cowan N, editors. The Development of Memory in Infancy and Childhood. Psychology Press. pp. 145–176.

    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203934654

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Botvinick M
    2. Braver T

    (2015) Motivation and cognitive control: from behavior to neural mechanism

    Annual Review of Psychology 66:83–113.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015044

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Braams BR
    2. van Duijvenvoorde AC
    3. Peper JS
    4. Crone EA

    (2015) Longitudinal changes in adolescent risk-taking: a comprehensive study of neural responses to rewards, pubertal development, and risk-taking behavior

    Journal of Neuroscience 35:7226–7238.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4764-14.2015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Brainard DH

    (1997) The psychophysics toolbox

    Spatial Vision 10:433–436.

    https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00357

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Casey BJ
    2. Cannonier T
    3. Conley MI
    4. Cohen AO
    5. Barch DM
    6. Heitzeg MM
    7. Soules ME
    8. Teslovich T
    9. Dellarco DV
    10. Garavan H
    11. Orr CA
    12. Wager TD
    13. Banich MT
    14. Speer NK
    15. Sutherland MT
    16. Riedel MC
    17. Dick AS
    18. Bjork JM
    19. Thomas KM
    20. Chaarani B
    21. Mejia MH
    22. Hagler DJ
    23. Daniela Cornejo M
    24. Sicat CS
    25. Harms MP
    26. Dosenbach NUF
    27. Rosenberg M
    28. Earl E
    29. Bartsch H
    30. Watts R
    31. Polimeni JR
    32. Kuperman JM
    33. Fair DA
    34. Dale AM
    35. ABCD Imaging Acquisition Workgroup

    (2018) The adolescent brain cognitive development (ABCD) study: imaging acquisition across 21 sites

    Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 32:43–54.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2018.03.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Castel AD
    2. Benjamin AS
    3. Craik FI
    4. Watkins MJ

    (2002) The effects of aging on selectivity and control in short-term recall

    Memory & Cognition 30:1078–1085.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194325

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Castel AD

    (2007) The adaptive and strategic use of memory by older adults: evaluative processing and Value-Directed remembering

    Psychology of Learning and Motivation 48:225–270.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(07)48006-9

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Castel AD
    2. Farb NA
    3. Craik FI

    (2007) Memory for general and specific value information in younger and older adults: measuring the limits of strategic control

    Memory & Cognition 35:689–700.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193307

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Castel AD
    2. Humphreys KL
    3. Lee SS
    4. Galván A
    5. Balota DA
    6. McCabe DP

    (2011) The development of memory efficiency and value-directed remembering across the life span: a cross-sectional study of memory and selectivity

    Developmental Psychology 47:1553–1564.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025623

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Castel AD
    2. Murayama K
    3. Friedman MC
    4. McGillivray S
    5. Link I

    (2013) Selecting valuable information to remember: age-related differences and similarities in self-regulated learning

    Psychology and Aging 28:232–242.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030678

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Chalmers KA
    2. Humphreys MS

    (2003) Experimental manipulation of prior experience: effects on item and associative recognition

    Memory 11:233–246.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210244000009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Cohen MS
    2. Rissman J
    3. Suthana NA
    4. Castel AD
    5. Knowlton BJ

    (2014) Value-based modulation of memory encoding involves strategic engagement of fronto-temporal semantic processing regions

    Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 14:578–592.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0275-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Cohen MS
    2. Rissman J
    3. Suthana NA
    4. Castel AD
    5. Knowlton BJ

    (2016) Effects of aging on value-directed modulation of semantic network activity during verbal learning

    NeuroImage 125:1046–1062.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.07.079

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Cohen AO
    2. Matese NG
    3. Filimontseva A
    4. Shen X
    5. Shi TC
    6. Livne E
    7. Hartley CA

    (2019a) Aversive learning strengthens episodic memory in both adolescents and adults

    Learning & Memory 26:272–279.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.048413.118

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Cohen MS
    2. Cheng LY
    3. Paller KA
    4. Reber PJ

    (2019b) Separate Memory-Enhancing effects of reward and strategic encoding

    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 31:1658–1673.

    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01438

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Cole MW
    2. Schneider W

    (2007) The cognitive control network: integrated cortical regions with dissociable functions

    NeuroImage 37:343–360.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.071

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Davachi L

    (2006) Item, context and relational episodic encoding in humans

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 16:693–700.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2006.10.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Davidow JY
    2. Foerde K
    3. Galván A
    4. Shohamy D

    (2016) An upside to reward sensitivity: the Hippocampus supports enhanced reinforcement learning in adolescence

    Neuron 92:93–99.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.08.031

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Davidow JY
    2. Insel C
    3. Somerville LH

    (2018) Adolescent development of Value-Guided goal pursuit

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22:725–736.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.05.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Delgado MR
    2. Stenger VA
    3. Fiez JA

    (2004) Motivation-dependent responses in the human caudate nucleus

    Cerebral Cortex 14:1022–1030.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhh062

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Eich TS
    2. Castel AD

    (2016) The cognitive control of emotional versus value-based information in younger and older adults

    Psychology and Aging 31:503–512.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Ergo K
    2. De Loof E
    3. Verguts T

    (2020) Reward prediction error and declarative memory

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 24:388–397.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Esteban O
    2. Markiewicz CJ
    3. Blair RW
    4. Moodie CA
    5. Isik AI
    6. Erramuzpe A
    7. Kent JD
    8. Goncalves M
    9. DuPre E
    10. Snyder M
    11. Oya H
    12. Ghosh SS
    13. Wright J
    14. Durnez J
    15. Poldrack RA
    16. Gorgolewski KJ

    (2019) fMRIPrep: a robust preprocessing pipeline for functional MRI

    Nature Methods 16:111–116.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-018-0235-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Fandakova Y
    2. Gruber MJ

    (2021) States of curiosity and interest enhance memory differently in adolescents and in children

    Developmental Science 24:e13005.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Feinberg DA
    2. Moeller S
    3. Smith SM
    4. Auerbach E
    5. Ramanna S
    6. Gunther M
    7. Glasser MF
    8. Miller KL
    9. Ugurbil K
    10. Yacoub E

    (2010) Multiplexed Echo planar imaging for sub-second whole brain FMRI and fast diffusion imaging

    PLOS ONE 5:e15710.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015710

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Finn AS
    2. Kalra PB
    3. Goetz C
    4. Leonard JA
    5. Sheridan MA
    6. Gabrieli JD

    (2016) Developmental dissociation between the maturation of procedural memory and declarative memory

    Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 142:212–220.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.09.027

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Geddes MR
    2. Mattfeld AT
    3. Angeles CL
    4. Keshavan A
    5. Gabrieli JDE

    (2018) Human aging reduces the neurobehavioral influence of motivation on episodic memory

    NeuroImage 171:296–310.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.12.053

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Ghetti S
    2. DeMaster DM
    3. Yonelinas AP
    4. Bunge SA

    (2010) Developmental differences in medial temporal lobe function during memory encoding

    Journal of Neuroscience 30:9548–9556.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3500-09.2010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Ghetti S
    2. Fandakova Y

    (2020) Neural development of memory and metamemory in childhood and adolescence: toward an integrative model of the development of episodic recollection

    Annual Review of Developmental Psychology 2:365–388.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-060320-085634

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Gonsalves BD
    2. Kahn I
    3. Curran T
    4. Norman KA
    5. Wagner AD

    (2005) Memory strength and repetition suppression: multimodal imaging of medial temporal cortical contributions to recognition

    Neuron 47:751–761.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.07.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Hallquist MN
    2. Geier CF
    3. Luna B

    (2018) Incentives facilitate developmental improvement in inhibitory control by modulating control-related networks

    NeuroImage 172:369–380.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.01.045

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Hanten G
    2. Li X
    3. Chapman SB
    4. Swank P
    5. Gamino J
    6. Roberson G
    7. Levin HS

    (2007) Development of verbal selective learning

    Developmental Neuropsychology 32:585–596.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640701361112

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Hennessee JP
    2. Castel AD
    3. Knowlton BJ

    (2017) Recognizing what matters: value improves recognition by selectively enhancing recollection

    Journal of Memory and Language 94:195–205.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.12.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Hennessee JP
    2. Patterson TK
    3. Castel AD
    4. Knowlton BJ

    (2019) Forget me not: encoding processes in value-directed remembering

    Journal of Memory and Language 106:29–39.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.02.001

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Hofer SM
    2. Flaherty BP
    3. Hoffman L

    (2006) Cross-Sectional analysis of Time-Dependent data: mean-induced association in Age-Heterogeneous samples and an alternative method based on sequential narrow Age-Cohort samples

    Multivariate Behavioral Research 41:165–187.

    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Insel C
    2. Kastman EK
    3. Glenn CR
    4. Somerville LH

    (2017) Development of corticostriatal connectivity constrains goal-directed behavior during adolescence

    Nature Communications 8:1605.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01369-8

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Jang AI
    2. Nassar MR
    3. Dillon DG
    4. Frank MJ

    (2019) Positive reward prediction errors during decision-making strengthen memory encoding

    Nature Human Behaviour 3:719–732.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0597-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Jenkinson M
    2. Beckmann CF
    3. Behrens TE
    4. Woolrich MW
    5. Smith SM

    (2012) FSL

    NeuroImage 62:782–790.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Jonides J
    2. Naveh-Benjamin M

    (1987) Estimating frequency of occurrence

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 13:230–240.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.230

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Katzman PL
    2. Hartley CA

    (2020) The value of choice facilitates subsequent memory across development

    Cognition 199:104239.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104239

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Kirchhoff BA
    2. Wagner AD
    3. Maril A
    4. Stern CE

    (2000) Prefrontal-temporal circuitry for episodic encoding and subsequent memory

    The Journal of Neuroscience 20:6173–6180.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-16-06173.2000

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Kirchhoff BA
    2. Buckner RL

    (2006) Functional-anatomic correlates of individual differences in memory

    Neuron 51:263–274.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.06.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Kleiner M
    2. Brainard D
    3. Pelli D

    (2007) What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3?

    Perception 36:1–16.

    https://doi.org/10.1068/v070821

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Köhler S
    2. Danckert S
    3. Gati JS
    4. Menon RS

    (2005) Novelty responses to relational and non-relational information in the Hippocampus and the parahippocampal region: a comparison based on event-related fMRI

    Hippocampus 15:763–774.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.20098

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Kundu P
    2. Inati SJ
    3. Evans JW
    4. Luh WM
    5. Bandettini PA

    (2012) Differentiating BOLD and non-BOLD signals in fMRI time series using multi-echo EPI

    NeuroImage 60:1759–1770.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Kundu P
    2. Brenowitz ND
    3. Voon V
    4. Worbe Y
    5. Vértes PE
    6. Inati SJ
    7. Saad ZS
    8. Bandettini PA
    9. Bullmore ET

    (2013) Integrated strategy for improving functional connectivity mapping using multiecho fMRI

    PNAS 110:16187–16192.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1301725110

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Libby R
    2. Lipe MG

    (1992) Incentives, effort, and the cognitive processes involved in Accounting-Related judgments

    Journal of Accounting Research 30:249–273.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/2491126

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Liljeholm M
    2. O'Doherty JP

    (2012) Contributions of the striatum to learning, motivation, and performance: an associative account

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16:467–475.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.07.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Lindenberger U
    2. von Oertzen T
    3. Ghisletta P
    4. Hertzog C

    (2011) Cross-sectional age variance extraction: what's change got to do with it?

    Psychology and Aging 26:34–47.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020525

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Lisman JE
    2. Grace AA

    (2005) The hippocampal-VTA loop: controlling the entry of information into long-term memory

    Neuron 46:703–713.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.05.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Liu Y
    2. Mattar MG
    3. Behrens TEJ
    4. Daw ND
    5. Dolan RJ

    (2021) Experience replay is associated with efficient nonlocal learning

    Science 372:eabf1357.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf1357

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. Software

    1. Mathworks Inc

    (2017) MATLAB, version  R2017a

    MATLAB, Natick.

    https://www.mathworks.com/company/newsroom/mathworks-announces-release-2017a-of-the-matlab-and-simulink-pro.html
62. 1. Meulemans T
    2. Van der Linden M
    3. Perruchet P

    (1998) Implicit sequence learning in children

    Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 69:199–221.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1998.2442

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Miotto EC
    2. Savage CR
    3. Evans JJ
    4. Wilson BA
    5. Martins MG
    6. Iaki S
    7. Amaro E

    (2006) Bilateral activation of the prefrontal cortex after strategic semantic cognitive training

    Human Brain Mapping 27:288–295.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20184

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Moeller S
    2. Yacoub E
    3. Olman CA
    4. Auerbach E
    5. Strupp J
    6. Harel N
    7. Uğurbil K

    (2010) Multiband multislice GE-EPI at 7 tesla, with 16-fold acceleration using partial parallel imaging with application to high spatial and temporal whole-brain fMRI

    Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 63:1144–1153.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.22361

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Mumford JA
    2. Davis T
    3. Poldrack RA

    (2014) The impact of study design on pattern estimation for single-trial multivariate pattern analysis

    NeuroImage 103:130–138.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.09.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Murty VP
    2. Calabro F
    3. Luna B

    (2016) The role of experience in adolescent cognitive development: integration of executive, memory, and mesolimbic systems

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 70:46–58.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.07.034

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Murty VP
    2. Tompary A
    3. Adcock RA
    4. Davachi L

    (2017) Selectivity in postencoding connectivity with High-Level visual cortex is associated with Reward-Motivated memory

    The Journal of Neuroscience 37:537–545.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4032-15.2016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Murty VP
    2. Adcock RA

    (2014) Enriched encoding: reward motivation organizes cortical networks for hippocampal detection of unexpected events

    Cerebral Cortex 24:2160–2168.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht063

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Ngo CT
    2. Newcombe NS
    3. Olson IR

    (2019) Gain-Loss framing enhances mnemonic discrimination in preschoolers

    Child Development 90:1569–1578.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13297

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Nordt M
    2. Hoehl S
    3. Weigelt S

    (2016) The use of repetition suppression paradigms in developmental cognitive neuroscience

    Cortex 80:61–75.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Nussenbaum K
    2. Prentis E
    3. Hartley CA

    (2020) Memory's reflection of learned information value increases across development

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 149:1919–1934.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000753

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. O'Kane G
    2. Insler RZ
    3. Wagner AD

    (2005) Conceptual and perceptual novelty effects in human medial temporal cortex

    Hippocampus 15:326–332.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.20053

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Ofen N
    2. Kao YC
    3. Sokol-Hessner P
    4. Kim H
    5. Whitfield-Gabrieli S
    6. Gabrieli JD

    (2007) Development of the declarative memory system in the human brain

    Nature Neuroscience 10:1198–1205.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1950

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Ofen N

    (2012) The development of neural correlates for memory formation

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 36:1708–1717.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Pachur T
    2. Schooler LJ
    3. Stevens JR

    (2014) We'll meet again: revealing distributional and temporal patterns of social contact

    PLOS ONE 9:e86081.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086081

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Pelli DG

    (1997) The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies

    Spatial Vision 10:437–442.

    https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00366

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Popov V
    2. Reder LM

    (2020) Frequency effects on memory: a resource-limited theory

    Psychological Review 127:1–46.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000161

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Power JD
    2. Petersen SE

    (2013) Control-related systems in the human brain

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 23:223–228.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.12.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. Software

    1. R Development Core Team

    (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing

    R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

    https://www.R-project.org/
80. 1. Reder LM
    2. Liu XL
    3. Keinath A
    4. Popov V

    (2016) Building knowledge requires bricks, not sand: the critical role of familiar constituents in learning

    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23:271–277.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0889-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Rich AS
    2. Gureckis TM

    (2018) Exploratory choice reflects the future value of information

    Decision 5:177–192.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000074

    • Google Scholar
82. Preprint

    1. Rosenbaum G
    2. Grassie H
    3. Hartley CA

    (2020) Valence biases in reinforcement learning shift across adolescence and modulate subsequent memory

    PsyArXiv.

    https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/n3vsr

    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Rouhani N
    2. Norman KA
    3. Niv Y

    (2018) Dissociable effects of surprising rewards on learning and memory

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 44:1430–1443.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000518

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Scherf KS
    2. Luna B
    3. Avidan G
    4. Behrmann M

    (2011) "What" precedes "which": developmental neural tuning in face- and place-related cortex

    Cerebral Cortex 21:1963–1980.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq269

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Scimeca JM
    2. Badre D

    (2012) Striatal contributions to declarative memory retrieval

    Neuron 75:380–392.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.07.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Shadlen MN
    2. Shohamy D

    (2016) Decision making and sequential sampling from memory

    Neuron 90:927–939.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.04.036

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Shigemune Y
    2. Tsukiura T
    3. Kambara T
    4. Kawashima R

    (2014) Remembering with gains and losses: effects of monetary reward and punishment on successful encoding activation of source memories

    Cerebral Cortex 24:1319–1331.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs415

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Shing YL
    2. Werkle-Bergner M
    3. Brehmer Y
    4. Müller V
    5. Li SC
    6. Lindenberger U

    (2010) Episodic memory across the lifespan: the contributions of associative and strategic components

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 34:1080–1091.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.11.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Shing YL
    2. Brehmer Y
    3. Heekeren HR
    4. Bäckman L
    5. Lindenberger U

    (2016) Neural activation patterns of successful episodic encoding: reorganization during childhood, maintenance in old age

    Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 20:59–69.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2016.06.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Shohamy D
    2. Adcock RA

    (2010) Dopamine and adaptive memory

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14:464–472.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.08.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Simonsohn U

    (2018) Two lines: a valid alternative to the invalid testing of U-Shaped relationships with quadratic regressions

    Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 1:538–555.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918805755

    • Google Scholar
92. Software

    1. Singmann H
    2. Bolker B
    3. Westfall J
    4. Aust F
    5. Ben-Shachar MS

    (2020) Afex: analysis of factorial experiments, version (Version. 27-2) [Computer software]

    Afex: analysis of factorial experiments.

    https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=afex
93. 1. Smith SM
    2. Jenkinson M
    3. Woolrich MW
    4. Beckmann CF
    5. Behrens TE
    6. Johansen-Berg H
    7. Bannister PR
    8. De Luca M
    9. Drobnjak I
    10. Flitney DE
    11. Niazy RK
    12. Saunders J
    13. Vickers J
    14. Zhang Y
    15. De Stefano N
    16. Brady JM
    17. Matthews PM

    (2004) Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL

    NeuroImage 23 Suppl 1:S208–S219.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.051

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Somerville LH
    2. Jones RM
    3. Ruberry EJ
    4. Dyke JP
    5. Glover G
    6. Casey BJ

    (2013) The medial prefrontal cortex and the emergence of self-conscious emotion in adolescence

    Psychological Science 24:1554–1562.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613475633

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Somerville LH
    2. Casey BJ

    (2010) Developmental neurobiology of cognitive control and motivational systems

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 20:236–241.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2010.01.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Squire LR

    (1992) Declarative and nondeclarative memory: multiple brain systems supporting learning and memory

    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 4:232–243.

    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1992.4.3.232

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Stanek JK
    2. Dickerson KC
    3. Chiew KS
    4. Clement NJ
    5. Adcock RA

    (2019) Expected reward value and reward uncertainty have temporally dissociable effects on memory formation

    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 31:1443–1454.

    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01411

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Stevens JR
    2. Marewski JN
    3. Schooler LJ
    4. Gilby IC

    (2016) Reflections of the social environment in chimpanzee memory: applying rational analysis beyond humans

    Royal Society Open Science 3:160293.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160293

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Stokes MG
    2. Atherton K
    3. Patai EZ
    4. Nobre AC

    (2012) Long-term memory prepares neural activity for perception

    PNAS 109:E360–E367.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1108555108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Störmer V
     2. Eppinger B
     3. Li SC

     (2014) Reward speeds up and increases consistency of visual selective attention: a lifespan comparison

     Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 14:659–671.

     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0273-z

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Summerfield JJ
     2. Lepsien J
     3. Gitelman DR
     4. Mesulam MM
     5. Nobre AC

     (2006) Orienting attention based on long-term memory experience

     Neuron 49:905–916.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.01.021

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Tang L
     2. Shafer AT
     3. Ofen N

     (2018) Prefrontal cortex contributions to the development of memory formation

     Cerebral Cortex 28:3295–3308.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx200

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Tingley D
     2. Yamamoto T
     3. Hirose K
     4. Keele L
     5. Imai K

     (2014) Mediation : r package for causal mediation analysis

     Journal of Statistical Software 59:i05.

     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v059.i05

     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Turi M
     2. Burr DC
     3. Igliozzi R
     4. Aagten-Murphy D
     5. Muratori F
     6. Pellicano E

     (2015) Children with autism spectrum disorder show reduced adaptation to number

     PNAS 112:7868–7872.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504099112

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Turk-Browne NB
     2. Yi DJ
     3. Chun MM

     (2006) Linking implicit and explicit memory: common encoding factors and shared representations

     Neuron 49:917–927.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.01.030

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Uncapher MR
     2. Hutchinson JB
     3. Wagner AD

     (2011) Dissociable effects of top-down and bottom-up attention during episodic encoding

     Journal of Neuroscience 31:12613–12628.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0152-11.2011

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Uncapher MR
     2. Wagner AD

     (2009) Posterior parietal cortex and episodic encoding: insights from fMRI subsequent memory effects and dual-attention theory

     Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 91:139–154.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2008.10.011

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Wais PE
     2. Kim OY
     3. Gazzaley A

     (2012) Distractibility during episodic retrieval is exacerbated by perturbation of left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex

     Cerebral Cortex 22:717–724.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr160

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
109. Preprint

     1. Wang S
     2. Feng SF
     3. Bornstein A

     (2020) Mixing memory and desire: how memory reactivation supports deliberative decision-making

     PsyArXiv.

     https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5vksj

     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Ward EJ
     2. Chun MM
     3. Kuhl BA

     (2013) Repetition suppression and multi-voxel pattern similarity differentially track implicit and explicit visual memory

     Journal of Neuroscience 33:14749–14757.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4889-12.2013

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
111. Book

     1. Wechsler D

     (2011)

     Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI-II

     NCS Pearson.

     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Wittmann BC
     2. Schott BH
     3. Guderian S
     4. Frey JU
     5. Heinze HJ
     6. Düzel E

     (2005) Reward-related FMRI activation of dopaminergic midbrain is associated with enhanced hippocampus-dependent long-term memory formation

     Neuron 45:459–467.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.01.010

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Woolrich MW
     2. Ripley BD
     3. Brady M
     4. Smith SM

     (2001) Temporal autocorrelation in Univariate linear modeling of FMRI data

     NeuroImage 14:1370–1386.

     https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0931

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Woolrich MW
     2. Behrens TE
     3. Beckmann CF
     4. Jenkinson M
     5. Smith SM

     (2004) Multilevel linear modelling for FMRI group analysis using bayesian inference

     NeuroImage 21:1732–1747.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.12.023

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
115. 1. Xu J
     2. Moeller S
     3. Auerbach EJ
     4. Strupp J
     5. Smith SM
     6. Feinberg DA
     7. Yacoub E
     8. Uğurbil K

     (2013) Evaluation of slice accelerations using multiband Echo planar imaging at 3 T

     NeuroImage 83:991–1001.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.055

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
116. 1. Yu Q
     2. McCall DM
     3. Homayouni R
     4. Tang L
     5. Chen Z
     6. Schoff D
     7. Nishimura M
     8. Raz S
     9. Ofen N

     (2018) Age-associated increase in Mnemonic strategy use is linked to prefrontal cortex development

     NeuroImage 181:162–169.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.07.008

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Acceptance summary:

This study will be relevant to those interested in the neurodevelopment of reward learning, episodic memory, and memory-guided decision-making. The combination of a clever task and thorough data analysis make this an impactful paper.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "Developmental change in prefrontal cortex recruitment supports the emergence of value-guided memory" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors, and the evaluation has been overseen by Christian Büchel as the Senior Editor. The following individual involved in review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Vishnu Murty (Reviewer #2).

The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this to help you prepare a revised submission.

Essential revisions:

All reviewers agreed that your manuscript presents important and interesting results suitable for publication in eLife. They generally liked the study and felt that the experimental design and data analysis approaches were clever and thorough. However, reviewers also raised several issues that we would like you to address in a revised version of the manuscript:

1. Do younger subjects not prioritize memory or do they not learn what information is valuable (e.g., R1, comment 3; R2, comment 2; R3, comment 2)?

2. Please address the modest relationship between the repetition suppression index in the parahippocampal cortex and age (e.g., R1, comment 1and2).

3. It would be important to be more specific regarding anatomical subregions in the introduction and discussion (R2, comment 1).

4. It would be interesting to connect the neural measures during initial frequency learning and memory-guided adaptive encoding (e.g., R2, comment 5).

5. Please discuss problems with cross-sectional designs, especially as they relate to mediation analyses (e.g., R3, comment 1).

6. Please discuss the implications of the quadratic effects (e.g., R2, comment 3).

We also encourage you to consider the other suggestions made by individual reviewers.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

1. Given the modest relationship between the repetition suppression index in the parahippocampal cortex and age, it would be important to make sure this relationship is robust. One way would be to use more data to improve the estimation of the repetition suppression index. For instance, data from all presentations could be used to estimate linear and quadratic effects of repetition number. This would not only improve the reliability of the estimates, but also offer the opportunity to examine whether the dynamics of frequency learning across multiple presentations changes with age.

2. At the very least, it would be important to include a scatter plot of repetition index versus age in the main text, and to show the parameter estimates across all repetitions in the parahippocampal cortex (e.g., per age group).

3. Given the effects of age on both initial frequency learning (new vs. old response accuracy and frequency estimation error) and the effects of item frequency on memory, it would be important to control for frequency learning when testing the effects of age on memory prioritization, and whether lateral PFC mediates this relationship.

4. Please include more information on how the four echo time series were combined. What is considered optimal in this regard?

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Before I start critiquing individual components of the study, I want to say I am quite excited about these results, and believe this a very clever design and interesting neuroimaging findings.

1. I found the introduction quite nice, and it really provided a strong foundation for a very timely paper. However, I think more specificity is needed for the predictions based on anatomical targets. For example, the ventral and dorsal lateral PFC are thought to sub-serve quite discrete processes, both of which could be relevant for this study. I think discussing prior work, and the authors own work, with a greater deal of anatomical specificity would help readers better interpret that findings. A similar weakness was in the lack of discussion of where in the prior and work value-related differences emerged. For example there is a lot of discussion of prior work by Davidow and Shohamy, but those all occurred in ventral striatum which does not overlap with the current findings.

2. For the frequency learning task, it would be helpful to report on accuracy and RT for the 5th trial only. It would be extremely important to know if children and adults were entering the second phase of the experiment with the same acquired knowledge, or different amounts of acquired knowledge. If this 5th trial accuracy is different across age groups, the authors need to include this measure as a co-variate in all neural analyses, as age differences in biases towards high frequency information may result from not having learned the information rather than not being able to effectively use the information to guide adaptive encoding.

3. I think more discussion is warranted on why some neurobehavioral targets show quadratic effects while others show linear. Quadratic effects are often predicted in theoretical models, but from my read on the literature rarely show up in developmental analyses. These data could be leveraged to better understand those models by explaining why some processes are quadratic and others are linear.

4. The authors show directly compare the model fits of the mediation models that manipulate directionality.

5. I found the predictors from the frequency analysis predicting behavior during memory encoding/retrieval to perhaps be the most interesting finding in the paper, especially given that both implicit and explicit measures were predicting memory independently. However, then I was left wanting to know (somewhat desperately!), how much these signals related to the lateral PFC and caudate signals seen during memory encoding. I think this type of analysis would really help make the paper a complete package.

6. Regarding the discussion, I think it would be helpful for the authors to discuss a few features of their data and how they relate to development. The first would be the WASI findings which were quite prominent in most analyses, and in a few showed interactions with age. If this measure is a proxy of executive function, discussing the role of executive function for adaptive memory could help provide a more concrete mechanisms of adaptive memory formation across development. Additionally, it would be helpful for the authors to discuss the negative findings during retrieval. The fact that these age-related differences in adaptive memory processes are most likely seeming from encoding versus retrieval is not only highly interesting, but are a major prediction that stems from an animal literature on dopaminergic influences on hippocampal-dependent memory.

7. It would be helpful to report all behavioral results in the youngest sample only, as the interpretation of the data is quite different if children can or cannot perform these processes.

8. Could the authors provide data on differences in behavioral performance for both task content (which could drive motivational differences) or task order (which might lead to practice effects). If notable differences emerge across these factors, I strongly believe they needed to be included as co-variates in ally analyses.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

1) Empirical findings directly comparing cross-sectional and longitudinal effects have demonstrated that cross-sectional analyses of age differences do not readily generalize to longitudinal research (e.g., Raz et al., 2005; Raz and Lindenberger, 2012). Formal analyses have demonstrated that proportion of explained age-related variance in cross-sectional mediation models may stem from various factors, including similar mean age trends, within-time correlations between a mediator and an outcome, or both (Lindenberger et al., 2011; see also Hofer, Flaherty, and Hoffman, 2006; Maxwell and Cole, 2007). Thus, the results of the mediation analysis showing that PFC activation explains age-related variance in memory difference scores, cannot be taken to imply that changes in PFC activation are correlated with changes in value-guided memory. While the general limitations of a cross-sectional study are noted in the Discussion of the manuscript, it would be important to discuss the critical limitations of the mediation analysis. While the main conclusions of the paper do not critically depend on this analysis, it would be important to alert the reader to the limited information value in performing cross-sectional mediation analyses of age variance.

2) It would be helpful to provide more information on how chance memory performance was handled during data analysis, especially as it is more likely to occur in younger participants. Related to this, please connect the points that belong to the same individual in Figure 3 to facilitate evaluation of individual differences in the memory difference scores.

3) I would like to see some consideration of how the different signatures of value learning, repetition suppression and reported item frequency, are related to the observed PFC and caudate effects during memory encoding. Such a discussion would help the reader connect the findings on learning and using information value across development.

4) A point worthy of discussion are the implications of the finding that younger participants demonstrated greater deviations in their frequency reports for the development of value learning, given that frequency reports were found to predict associative memory accuracy.

5) It would be helpful to include (supplementary) figures accompanying the behavioral results from the frequency learning phase.

6) Supplementary Figure S2 – providing an (additional) plot of the estimated age effects would help match the displayed results better to the description in the main text.

Essential revisions:

All reviewers agreed that your manuscript presents important and interesting results suitable for publication in eLife. They generally liked the study and felt that the experimental design and data analysis approaches were clever and thorough. However, reviewers also raised several issues that we would like you to address in a revised version of the manuscript:

1. Do younger subjects not prioritize memory or do they not learn what information is valuable (e.g., R1, comment 3; R2, comment 2; R3, comment 2)?

Thank you for raising this important point. Indeed, one of our main findings is that older participants are better both at learning the structure of their environments and also at using structured knowledge to strategically prioritize memory. In our original manuscript, we described results of a model that included participants’ explicit frequency reports as a predictor of memory. Model comparison revealed that participants’ frequency reports — which we interpret as reflecting their beliefs about the structure of the environment — predicted memory more strongly than the item’s true frequency. In other words, participants’ beliefs about the structure of the environment (even if incorrect) more strongly influenced their memory encoding than the true structure of the environment. Critically, however, frequency reports interacted with age to predict memory (Figure 8). Even when we accounted for age-related differences in knowledge of the structure of the environment, older participants demonstrated a stronger influence of frequency on memory, suggesting they were better able to use their beliefs to control subsequent associative encoding. We have now clarified our interpretation of this model in our discussion on p. 23:

“Importantly, though we observed age-related differences in participants’ learning of the structure of their environment, the strengthening of the relation between frequency reports and associative memory with increasing age suggests that age differences in learning cannot fully account for age differences in value-guided memory. Even when accounting for individual differences in participants’ explicit knowledge of the structure of the environment, older participants demonstrated a stronger relation between their beliefs about item frequency and associative memory, suggesting that they used their beliefs to guide memory to a greater degree than younger participants.”

As noted by the reviewer, however, our initial memory analysis did not account for age-related differences in participants’ initial, online learning of item frequency, and our neural analyses further did not account for age differences in explicit frequency reports. We have now run additional control analyses to account for the potential influence of individual differences in frequency learning on associative memory. Specifically, for each participant, we computed three metrics: (1) their overall accuracy during frequency learning, (2) their overall accuracy for the last presentation of each item during frequency learning (as suggested by Reviewer 2), and (3) the mean magnitude of the error in their frequency reports. We then included these metrics as covariates in our memory analyses.

When we include these control variables in our model, we continue to observe a robust effect of frequency condition (p < 0.001) as well as robust interactions between frequency condition and linear and quadratic age (ps < 0.003) on associative memory accuracy. We also observed a main effect of frequency error magnitude on memory accuracy (p < 0.001). Here, however, we no longer observe main effects of age or quadratic age on overall memory accuracy. Given the relation we observed between frequency error magnitudes and age, the results from this model suggests that there may be age-related improvements in overall memory that influence both memory for associations as well as learning of and memory for item frequencies. The fact that age no longer relates to overall memory when controlling for frequency error magnitudes suggest that age-related variance in memory for item frequencies and memory for associations are strongly related within individuals. Importantly, however, age-related variance in memory for item frequencies did not explain age-related variance in the influence of frequency condition on associative memory, suggesting that there are developmental differences in the use of knowledge of environmental structure to prioritize valuable information in memory that persist even when controlling for age-related differences in initial learning of environmental regularities. Given the importance of this analysis in elucidating the relation between the learning of environmental structure and value-guided memory, we have now updated the results in the main text of our manuscript to include them. Specifically, on p. 13, we now write:

“Because we observed age-related differences in participants’ online learning of item frequencies and in their explicit frequency reports, we further examined whether these age differences in initial learning could account for the age differences we observed in associative memory. To do so, we ran an additional model in which we included each participant’s mean frequency learning accuracy, mean frequency learning accuracy on the last repetition of each item, and explicit report error magnitude as covariates. Here, explicit report error magnitude predicted overall memory performance, χ2(1) = 13.05, p < 0.001, and we did not observe main effects of age or quadratic age on memory performance (ps > 0.20). However, we continued to observe a main effect of frequency condition, χ2(1) = 19.65 p < 0.001, as well as significant interactions between frequency condition and both linear age χ2(1) = 10.59, p = 0.001, and quadratic age χ2(1) = 9.15, p = 0.002. Thus, while age differences in initial learning related to overall memory performance, they did not account for age differences in the use of environmental regularities to strategically prioritize memory for valuable information.”

In addition, as suggested by the reviewer, we also included the three covariates as control variables in our mediation analysis. When controlling for online frequency learning and explicit frequency report errors, PFC activity continued to mediate the relation between age and memory difference scores. We have now included these results on p. 16 – 17 of the main text:

“Further, when we included quadratic age, WASI scores, online frequency learning accuracy, online frequency learning accuracy on the final repetition of each item, and mean explicit frequency report error magnitudes as control variables in the mediation analysis, PFC activation continued to mediate the relation between linear age and memory difference scores (standardized indirect effect:.56, 95% confidence interval: [.06, 1.35], p = 0.023; standardized direct effect; 1.75, 95% confidence interval: [.12,.3.38], p = 0.034).”

We also refer to these analyses when we interpret our findings in our discussion. On p. 23, we write:

“In addition, we continued to observe a robust interaction between age and frequency condition on associative memory, even when controlling for age-related change in the accuracy of both online frequency learning and explicit frequency reports. Thus, though we observed age differences in the learning of environmental regularities and in their influence on subsequent associative memory encoding, our developmental memory effects cannot be fully explained by differences in initial learning.”

We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion, as we believe these control analyses strengthen our interpretation of age differences in both the learning and use of environmental regularities to prioritize memory.

2. Please address the modest relationship between the repetition suppression index in the parahippocampal cortex and age (e.g., R1, comment 1 and 2).

As recommended, we have now computed neural activation within our parahippocampal region of interest not just for the first and last appearance of each item during frequency learning, but for all appearances. Specifically we extended our repetition suppression analysis described in the manuscript to include all image repetitions (p. 36 – 37). Our new methods description reads:

“For each stimulus in the high-frequency condition, we examined repetition suppression by measuring activation within a parahippocampal ROI during the presentation of each item during frequency learning. We defined our ROI by taking the peak voxel (x = 30, y = -39, z = -15) from the group-level first > last item appearance contrast for high-frequency items during frequency learning and drawing a 5 mm sphere around it. This voxel was located in the right parahippocampal cortex, though we observed widespread and largely symmetric activation in bilateral parahippocampal cortex. To encompass both left and right parahippocampal cortex within our ROI, we mirrored the peak voxel sphere. For each participant, we modeled the neural response to each appearance of each item using the Least Squares-Separate approach (Mumford et al., 2014). Each first-level model included a regressor for the trial of interest, as well as separate regressors for the onsets of all other items, grouped by repetition number (e.g., a regressor for item onsets on their first appearance, a regressor for item onsets on their second appearance, etc.). Values that fell outside five standard deviations from the mean level of neural activation across all subjects and repetitions were excluded from subsequent analyses (18 out of 10,320 values; .01% of observations). In addition to examining neural activation as a function of stimulus repetition, we also computed an index of repetition suppression for each high-frequency item by computing the difference in mean β values within our ROI on its first and last appearance.”

As suggested, we ran a mixed effects model examining the influence of linear and quadratic age and linear and quadratic repetition number on neural activation. In line with our whole-brain analysis, we observed a robust effect of linear and quadratic repetition number, suggesting that neural activation decreased non-linearly across stimulus repetitions. In addition, we observed significant interactions between our age and repetition number terms, suggesting that repetition suppression increased into early adulthood. Thus, although the relation we observed between age and repetition suppression is modest, the results from our new analyses suggest it is robust. Because these results largely aligned with the pattern of age-related change we observed in our analysis of repetition suppression indices, we continued to use that compressed metric in subsequent analyses looking at relations with behavior. However, we have updated our Results section to include the full analysis taking into account all item repetitions, as suggested. Our updated manuscript now reads (p. 9):

“We next examined whether repetition suppression in the parahippocampal cortex changed with age. We defined a parahippocampal region of interest (ROI) by drawing a 5mm sphere around the peak voxel from the group-level first > last appearance contrast (x = 30, y = -39, z = -15), and mirrored it to encompass both right and left parahippocampal cortex (Figure 2C). For each participant, we modeled the neural response to each appearance of each high-frequency item. We then examined how neural activation changed as a function of repetition number and age. To account for non-linear effects of repetition number, we included linear and quadratic repetition number terms. In line with our whole-brain analysis, we observed a main effect of repetition number, F(1, 5016.0) = 30.64, p < 0.001, indicating that neural activation within the parahippocampal ROI decreased across repetitions. Further, we observed a main effect of quadratic repetition number, F(1, 9881.0) = 7.47, p = 0.006, indicating that the reduction in neural activity was greatest across earlier repetitions (Figure 3A). Importantly, the influence of repetition number on neural activation varied with both linear age, F(1, 7267.5) = 7.2, p = 0.007 and quadratic age , F(1, 7260.8) = 6.9, p = 0.009. Finally, we also observed interactions between quadratic repetition number and both linear and quadratic age (ps < 0.026). These age-related differences suggest that repetition suppression was greatest in adulthood, with the steepest increases occurring from late adolescence to early adulthood (Figure 3).”

For each participant for each item, we also computed a “repetition suppression index” by taking the difference in mean β values within our ROI on each item’s first and last appearance (Ward et al., 2013). These indices demonstrated a similar pattern of age-related variance — we found that the reduction of neural activity from the first to last appearance of the items varied positively with linear age, F(1, 78.32) = 3.97, p = 0.05, and negatively with quadratic age, F(1, 77.55) = 4.8, p = 0.031 (Figure 3B). Taken together, our behavioral and neural results suggest that sensitivity to the repetition of items in the environment was prevalent from childhood to adulthood but increased with age.”

In addition, in the main text on p. 10, we have now included the suggested scatter plot (see new Figure 3B) as well as a modified version of our previous figure S2 to show neural activation across all repetitions in the parahippocampal cortex (see new Figure 3A). We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion, as we believe these new figures much more clearly illustrate the repetition suppression effects we observed during frequency learning.

3. It would be important to be more specific regarding anatomical subregions in the introduction and discussion (R2, comment 1).

We agree with the reviewer that our introduction and discussion would benefit from more anatomical granularity, and we did indeed have a priori predictions about more specific neural regions that might be involved in our task.

First, we expected that both the ventral and dorsal striatum might be responsive to stimulus value across our age range. Prior work has suggested that activity in the ventral striatum often correlates with the intrinsic value of a stimulus, whereas activity in the dorsal striatum may reflect goal-directed action values (Liljeholm and O’Doherty, 2012). In our task, we expected that high-frequency items may acquire intrinsic value during frequency learning that is then reflected in the striatal response to these items during encoding. However, because participants were not rewarded when they encountered these images, but rather incentivized to encode associations involving them, we hypothesized that the dorsal striatum may represent the value of the ‘action’ of remembering each pair. In line with this prediction, the dorsal striatum, and the caudate in particular, have also been shown to be engaged during value-guided cognitive control (Hikosaka et al., 2014; Insel et al., 2017).

We have now revised our introduction to include greater specificity in our anatomical predictions on p. 3:

“When individuals need to remember information associated with previously encountered stimuli (e.g., the grocery store aisle where an ingredient is located), frequency knowledge may be instantiated as value signals, engaging regions along the mesolimbic dopamine pathway that have been implicated in reward anticipation and the encoding of stimulus and action values. These areas include the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and the ventral and dorsal striatum (Adcock et al., 2006; Liljeholm and O’Doherty, 2012; Shigemune et al., 2014).”

Though we initially predicted that encoding of high-value information would be associated with increased activation in both the ventral and dorsal striatum, the activation we observed was largely within the dorsal striatum, and specifically, the caudate. We have now revised our discussion accordingly on p. 26:

“Though we initially hypothesized that both the ventral and dorsal striatum may be involved in encoding of high-value information, the activation we observed was largely within the dorsal striatum, a region that may reflect the value of goal-directed actions (Liljeholm and O’Doherty, 2012). In our task, rather than each stimulus acquiring intrinsic value during frequency learning, participants may have represented the value of the ‘action’ of remembering each pair during encoding.”

Second, while the ventromedial PFC often reflects value, given the control demands of our task, we expected to see greater activity in the dorsolateral PFC, which is often engaged in tasks that require the implementation of cognitive control (Botvinick and Braver, 2015). Thus, we hypothesized that individuals would show increased activation in the dlPFC during encoding of high- vs. low-value information, and that this activation would vary as a function of age. We have now clarified this hypothesis on p. 3:

“Value responses in the striatum may signal the need for increased engagement of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) (Botvinick and Braver, 2015), which supports the implementation of strategic control.”

In our discussion, we review disparate findings in the developmental literature and discuss factors that may contribute to these differences across studies. For example, in our discussion of Davidow et al., (2016), we highlight differences between their task design and the present study, focusing on how their task involved immediate receipt of reward at the time of encoding, while our task incentivized memory accuracy. We further note that studies that involve reward delivery at the time of encoding may engage different neural pathways than those that promote goal-directed encoding. Beyond Davidow et al., (2016), there are no other neuroimaging studies that examine the influence of reward on memory across development. Thus, we cannot relate our present neural findings to prior work on the development of value-guided memory. As we note in our discussion (p. 28), “Further work is needed to characterize both the influence of different types of reward signals on memory across development, as well as the development of the neural pathways that underlie age-related change in behavior.”

4. It would be interesting to connect the neural measures during initial frequency learning and memory-guided adaptive encoding (e.g., R2, comment 5).

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that it would be interesting to link frequency-learning behavior to neural activity at encoding. As such, we have now conducted additional analyses to explore these relations.

In the original version of our manuscript, we examined behavior at the item level through mixed-effects models, and neural activation during encoding at the participant level. Thus, to examine the relation between frequency-learning metrics and neural activation at encoding, we created two additional participant-level metrics. For each participant we computed their average repetition suppression index, and a measure of frequency distance. The average repetition suppression index reflects the overall extent to which the participant demonstrated repetition suppression in response to the fifth presentation of the high-frequency items, and is computed by averaging each participant’s repetition suppression indices across items. We hypothesized that participants who demonstrated the greatest degree of repetition suppression might be the most sensitive to the difference between the 1- and 5-frequency items, and therefore, show the greatest differences in striatal and PFC activation during encoding of high- vs. low-value information. The frequency distance metric reflects the average distance between participants’ explicit frequency reports for items that appeared once and items that appeared five times, and is computed by averaging their explicit frequency reports for items in each frequency condition, and then subtracting the average reports in the low-frequency condition from those in the high-frequency condition. We hypothesized that participants with the largest frequency distances might similarly be the most sensitive to the difference between the 1- and 5-frequency items, and therefore, show the greatest differences in striatal and PFC activation during encoding of high- vs. low-value information.

We first wanted to confirm that the relations we observed between repetition suppression, frequency reports, and age, could also be observed at the participant level. In line with our prior, behavioral analyses, we found that age related to both mean repetition suppression indices (marginally; linear age: p = 0.067; quadratic age: p = 0.042); and frequency distances (linear and quadratic age: ps < 0.001).

In addition, we further tested whether these two metrics related to memory performance. In contrast to our item-level findings, we did not observe a significant relation between repetition suppression indices and memory (p = 0.83). We did observe an effect of frequency distance on memory performance. Specifically, we observed significant interactions between frequency distance and age (p = 0.014) and frequency distance and quadratic age (p = 0.021) on memory difference scores, such that the influence of frequency distance on memory difference scores increased with increasing age from childhood to adolescence.

We next examined how mean repetition suppression indices and frequency distances related to differential neural activation during encoding of high- and low-value pairs. In line with our memory findings, we did not observe any significant relations between mean repetition suppression indices and neural activation in the caudate or prefrontal cortex during encoding (ps > 0.15).

Frequency distance did not relate to caudate activation during encoding nor did we observe a frequency distance x age interaction effect (ps > 0.16). Frequency distance did, however, relate to differential PFC activation during encoding of high- vs. low-value pairs. Specifically, we observed a main effect of frequency distance on PFC activation (p = 0.0012), such that participants whose explicit reports of item frequency, were on average, more distinct across frequency conditions, demonstrated increased PFC activation during encoding of pairs involving high- vs. low-frequency items. Interestingly, when we included frequency distance in our model, we no longer observed a significant effect of age on differential PFC activation, nor did we observe a significant frequency distance x age interaction (ps > 0.13). These findings suggest that PFC activation during encoding may have, in part, reflected participants’ beliefs about the structure of the environment, with participants demonstrating stronger differential engagement of control processes across conditions when their representations of the conditions themselves were more distinct.

Finally, we examined how age, frequency distance, and PFC activation related to memory difference scores. Here, even when controlling for both frequency distance and PFC activation, we continued to observe main effects of age and quadratic age on memory difference scores (linear age: p = 0.006; quadratic age: p = 0.001). In line with our analysis of the relation between frequency reports and memory, these results suggest that age-related variance in value-guided memory may depend on both knowledge of the structure of the environment and use of that knowledge to effectively control encoding.

We have now added these results to our manuscript on p. 13 – 14. We write:

“Given the relations we observed between memory and both repetition suppression and frequency reports, we examined whether they related to neural activation in both our caudate and PFC ROI during encoding. […] Importantly, however, even when we accounted for both PFC activation and frequency distances, we continued to observe an effect of age on memory difference scores (β = 0.56, SE = 0.20, p = 0.006), which, together with our prior analyses, suggest that developmental differences in value-guided memory are not driven solely by age differences in beliefs about the structure of the environment but also depend on the use of those beliefs to guide encoding.”

We have added the full model results to Appendix 3.

Given these results, we have now revised our interpretation of our neural data. Our memory analyses demonstrate that across our age range, we observed age-related differences in both the acquisition of knowledge of the structure of the environment and in its use. Originally, we interpreted the PFC activation as reflecting the use of learned value to guide memory. However, the strong relation we found between frequency distance and PFC activation suggests that the age differences in PFC activation that we observed may also be related to age differences in knowledge of the structure of the environment that governs when control processes should be engaged most strongly. However, these results must be interpreted cautiously. Participants provided explicit frequency reports after they completed the encoding and retrieval tasks, and so explicit frequency reports may have been influenced not only by participants’ memories of online frequency learning, but also by the strength with which they encoded the item and its paired associate, and the experience of successfully retrieving it.

We have now revised our discussion to consider these results. On p. 23, we now write,

“Our neural results further suggest that developmental differences in memory were driven by both knowledge of the structure of the environment and use of that knowledge to guide encoding.”

On p. 24, we write,

“The development of adaptive memory requires not only the implementation of encoding and retrieval strategies, but also the flexibility to up- or down-regulate the engagement of control in response to momentary fluctuations in information value (Castel et al., 2007, 2013; Hennessee et al., 2017). Importantly, value-based modulation of lateral PFC engagement during encoding mediated the relation between age and memory selectivity, suggesting that developmental change in both the representation of learned value and value-guided cognitive control may underpin the emergence of adaptive memory prioritization. Prior work examining other neurocognitive processes, including response inhibition (Insel et al., 2017) and selective attention (Störmer et al., 2014), has similarly found that increases in the flexible upregulation of control in response to value cues enhance goal-directed behavior across development (Davidow et al., 2018), and may depend on the engagement of both striatal and prefrontal circuitry (Hallquist et al., 2018; Insel et al., 2017). Here, we extend these past findings to the domain of memory, demonstrating that value signals derived from the structure of the environment increasingly elicit prefrontal cortex engagement and strengthen goal-directed encoding across childhood and into adolescence.”

And on p. 25, we have added an additional paragraph:

“Further, we also demonstrate that in the absence of explicit value cues, the engagement of prefrontal control processes may reflect beliefs about information value that are learned through experience. Here, we found that differential PFC activation during encoding of high- vs. low-value information reflected individual and age-related differences in beliefs about the structure of the environment; participants who represented the average frequencies of the low- and high-frequency items as further apart also demonstrated greater value-based modulation of lateral PFC activation. It is important to note, however, that we collected explicit frequency reports after associative encoding and retrieval. Thus the relation between PFC activation and explicit frequency reports may be bidirectional — while participants may have increased the recruitment of cognitive control processes to better encode information they believed was more valuable, the engagement of more elaborative or deeper encoding strategies that led to stronger memory traces may have also increased participants’ subjective sense of an item’s frequency (Jonides and Naveh-Benjamin, 1987).”

5. Please discuss problems with cross-sectional designs, especially as they relate to mediation analyses (e.g., R3, comment 1).

Thank you for raising this critical point. We have expanded our discussion to specifically note the limitations of our mediation analysis and to more strongly emphasize the need for future longitudinal studies to reveal how changes in neural circuitry may support the emergence of motivated memory across development. Specifically, on p. 26, we now write:

“One important caveat is that our study was cross-sectional — it will be important to replicate our findings in a longitudinal sample to more directly measure how developmental changes in cognitive control within an individual contribute to changes in their ability to selectively encode useful information. Our mediation results, in particular, must be interpreted with caution as simulations have demonstrated that in cross-sectional samples, variables can emerge as significant mediators of age-related change due largely to statistical artifact (Hofer, Flaherty, and Hoffman, 2006; Lindenberger et al., 2011). Indeed, our finding that PFC activation mediates the relation between age and value-guided memory does not necessarily imply that within an individual, PFC development leads to improvements in memory selectivity. Longitudinal work in which individuals’ neural activity and memory performance is sampled densely within developmental windows of interest is needed to elucidate the complex relations between age, brain development, and behavior (Hofer, Flaherty, and Hoffman, 2006; Lindenberger et al., 2011).”

6. Please discuss the implications of the quadratic effects (e.g., R2, comment 3).

We agree with the reviewer that more discussion is warranted here. While many cognitive processes tend to improve with increasing age, the significant interaction between quadratic age and frequency condition on memory accuracy could reflect a number of different patterns of developmental variance. Because quadratic curves are U-shaped, the significant interaction between quadratic age and frequency condition could reflect a peak in value-guided memory in adolescence. However, the combination of linear and quadratic effects can also capture “plateauing” effects, where the influence of age on a particular cognitive process decreases at a particular developmental timepoint. To determine how to interpret the quadratic effect of age on value-guided memory — and specifically, to test for the presence of an adolescent peak — we ran an additional analysis.

To test for an adolescent peak in value-guided memory, we first fit our memory accuracy model without any age terms, and then extracted the random slope across frequency conditions for each subject. We then conducted a ‘two lines test’ (Simonsohn, 2018) to examine the relation between age and these random slopes. In brief, the two-lines test fits the data with two linear models — one with a positive slope and one with a negative slope, algorithmically determining the breakpoint in the estimates where the signs of the slopes change. When we analyzed our memory data in this way, we found a robust, positive relation between age and value-guided memory (see newly added Appendix 2 – Figure 3) from childhood to mid-adolescence, that peaked around age 16 (age 15.86). From age ~16 to early adulthood, however, we observed only a marginal negative relation between age and value-guided memory (p = 0.0567). Thus, our findings do not offer strong evidence in support of an adolescent peak in value-guided memory — instead, they suggest that improvements in value-guided memory are strongest from childhood to adolescence.

To more clearly demonstrate the relation between age and value-guided memory, we have now included the results of the two-lines test in the Results section of our main text. On p. 12 – 13, we write:

“In line with our hypothesis, we observed a main effect of frequency condition on memory, χ2(1) = 21.51, p < 0.001, indicating that individuals used naturalistic value signals to prioritize memory for high-value information. Critically, this effect interacted with both linear age (χ2(1) = 11.03, p < 0.001) and quadratic age (χ2(1) = 9.51, p = 0.002), such that the influence of frequency condition on memory increased to the greatest extent throughout childhood and early adolescence.

To determine whether the interaction between quadratic age and frequency condition on memory accuracy reflected an adolescent peak in value-guided memory prioritization, we re-ran our memory accuracy model without including any age terms, and extracted each participant’s random slope across frequency conditions. We then submitted these random slopes to the “two-lines” test (Simonsohn, 2018), which fits two regression lines with oppositely signed slopes to the data, algorithmically determining where the sign flip should occur. The results of this analysis revealed that the influence of frequency condition on memory significantly increased from age 8 to age 15.86 (b = 0.03, z = 2.71, p = 0.0068; Appendix 2 – Figure 3), but only marginally decreased from age 15.86 to age 25 (b = -.02, z = 1.91, p = 0.0576). Thus, the interaction between frequency condition and quadratic age on memory performance suggests that the biggest age differences in value-guided memory occurred through childhood and early adolescence, with older adolescents and adults performing similarly.”

That said, this developmental trajectory is likely specific to the particular demands of our task. In our previous behavioral study that used a very similar paradigm (Nussenbaum, Prentis, and Hartley, 2020), we observed only a linear relation between age and value-guided memory. Although the task used in our behavioral study was largely similar to the task we employed here, there were subtle differences in the design that may have extended the age range through which we observed improvements in memory prioritization. In particular, in our previous behavioral study, the memory test required participants to select the correct associate from a grid of 20 options (i.e., 1 correct and 19 incorrect options), whereas here, participants had to select the correct associate from a grid of 4 options (1 correct and 3 incorrect options). In our prior work, the need to differentiate the ‘correct’ option from many more foils may have increased the demands on either (or both) memory encoding or memory retrieval, requiring participants to encode and retrieve more specific representations that would be less confusable with other memory representations. By decreasing the task demands in the present study, we may have shifted the developmental curve we observed toward earlier developmental timepoints.

We originally did not emphasize our quadratic findings in the discussion of our manuscript because, given the marginal decrease in memory selectivity we observed from age 16 to age 25 and the different age-related findings across our two studies, we did not want to make strong claims about the specific shape of developmental change. However, we agree with the reviewer that these points are worthy of discussion within the manuscript. We have now amended our discussion on p. 25 accordingly:

“We found that memory prioritization varied with quadratic age, and our follow-up tests probing the quadratic age effect did not reveal evidence for significant age-related change in memory prioritization between late adolescence and early adulthood. However, in our prior behavioral work using a very similar paradigm (Nussenbaum et al., 2020), we found that memory prioritization varied with linear age only. In line with theoretical proposals (Davidow et al., 2018), subtle differences in the control demands between the two tasks (e.g., reducing the number of ‘foils’ presented on each trial of the memory test here relative to our prior study), may have shifted the age range across which we observed differences in behavior, with the more demanding variant of our task showing more linear age-related improvements into early adulthood. In addition, the specific control demands of our task may have also influenced the age at which value-guided memory emerged. Future studies should test whether younger children can modulate encoding based on the value of information if the mnemonic demands of the task are simpler.”

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion, and believe our additions that expand on the quadratic age effects help clarify our developmental findings.

We also encourage you to consider the other suggestions made by individual reviewers.

We appreciate the thoughtful comments and suggestions from the reviewers and have addressed all of them, in turn, below. Given the overlap across many of the reviewer comments, some of our responses are repeated where relevant.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

1. Given the modest relationship between the repetition suppression index in the parahippocampal cortex and age, it would be important to make sure this relationship is robust. One way would be to use more data to improve the estimation of the repetition suppression index. For instance, data from all presentations could be used to estimate linear and quadratic effects of repetition number. This would not only improve the reliability of the estimates, but also offer the opportunity to examine whether the dynamics of frequency learning across multiple presentations changes with age.

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. As recommended, we have now computed neural activation within our parahippocampal region of interest not just for the first and last appearance of each item during frequency learning, but for all appearances. Specifically we extended our repetition suppression analysis described in the manuscript to include all image repetitions (p. 36 – 37). Our new methods description reads:

“For each stimulus in the high-frequency condition, we examined repetition suppression by measuring activation within a parahippocampal ROI during the presentation of each item during frequency learning. […] In addition to examining neural activation as a function of stimulus repetition, we also computed an index of repetition suppression for each high-frequency item by computing the difference in mean β values within our ROI on its first and last appearance.”

As suggested, we ran a mixed effects model examining the influence of linear and quadratic age and linear and quadratic repetition number on neural activation. In line with our whole-brain analysis, we observed a robust effect of linear and quadratic repetition number, suggesting that neural activation decreased non-linearly across stimulus repetitions. In addition, we observed significant interactions between our age and repetition number terms, suggesting that repetition suppression increased into early adulthood. Thus, although the relation we observed between age and repetition suppression is modest, the results from our new analyses suggest it is robust. Because these results largely aligned with the pattern of age-related change we observed in our analysis of repetition suppression indices, we continued to use that compressed metric in subsequent analyses looking at relations with behavior. However, we have updated our Results section to include the full analysis taking into account all item repetitions, as suggested. Our updated manuscript now reads (p. 9):

“We next examined whether repetition suppression in the parahippocampal cortex changed with age. […] These age-related differences suggest that repetition suppression was greatest in adulthood, with the steepest increases occurring from late adolescence to early adulthood (Figure 3).”

For each participant for each item, we also computed a “repetition suppression index” by taking the difference in mean β values within our ROI on each item’s first and last appearance (Ward et al., 2013). These indices demonstrated a similar pattern of age-related variance — we found that the reduction of neural activity from the first to last appearance of the items varied positively with linear age, F(1, 78.32) = 3.97, p = 0.05, and negatively with quadratic age, F(1, 77.55) = 4.8, p = 0.031 (Figure 3B). Taken together, our behavioral and neural results suggest that sensitivity to the repetition of items in the environment was prevalent from childhood to adulthood but increased with age.”

2. At the very least, it would be important to include a scatter plot of repetition index versus age in the main text, and to show the parameter estimates across all repetitions in the parahippocampal cortex (e.g., per age group).

In the main text on p. 10, we have now included the suggested scatter plot (see new Figure 3B) as well as a modified version of our previous figure S2 to show neural activation across all repetitions in the parahippocampal cortex (see new Figure 3A). We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion, as we believe these new figures much more clearly illustrate the repetition suppression effects we observed during frequency learning.

3. Given the effects of age on both initial frequency learning (new vs. old response accuracy and frequency estimation error) and the effects of item frequency on memory, it would be important to control for frequency learning when testing the effects of age on memory prioritization, and whether lateral PFC mediates this relationship.

Thank you for raising this important point. Indeed, one of our main findings is that older participants are better both at learning the structure of their environments and also at using structured knowledge to strategically prioritize memory. In our original manuscript, we described results of a model that included participants’ explicit frequency reports as a predictor of memory. Model comparison revealed that participants’ frequency reports — which we interpret as reflecting their beliefs about the structure of the environment — predicted memory more strongly than the item’s true frequency. In other words, participants’ beliefs about the structure of the environment (even if incorrect) more strongly influenced their memory encoding than the true structure of the environment. Critically, however, frequency reports interacted with age to predict memory (Figure 8). Even when we accounted for age-related differences in knowledge of the structure of the environment, older participants demonstrated a stronger influence of frequency on memory, suggesting they were better able to use their beliefs to control subsequent associative encoding. We have now clarified our interpretation of this model in our discussion on p. 23:

“Importantly, though we observed age-related differences in participants’ learning of the structure of their environment, the strengthening of the relation between frequency reports and associative memory with increasing age suggests that age differences in learning cannot fully account for age differences in value-guided memory. Even when accounting for individual differences in participants’ explicit knowledge of the structure of the environment, older participants demonstrated a stronger relation between their beliefs about item frequency and associative memory, suggesting that they used their beliefs to guide memory to a greater degree than younger participants.”

As noted by the reviewer, however, our initial memory analysis did not account for age-related differences in participants’ initial, online learning of item frequency, and our neural analyses further did not account for age differences in explicit frequency reports. We have now run additional control analyses to account for the potential influence of individual differences in frequency learning on associative memory. Specifically, for each participant, we computed three metrics: (1) their overall accuracy during frequency learning, (2) their overall accuracy for the last presentation of each item during frequency learning (as suggested by Reviewer 2), and (3) the mean magnitude of the error in their frequency reports. We then included these metrics as covariates in our memory analyses.

When we include these control variables in our model, we continue to observe a robust effect of frequency condition (p < 0.001) as well as robust interactions between frequency condition and linear and quadratic age (ps < 0.003) on associative memory accuracy. We also observed a main effect of frequency error magnitude on memory accuracy (p < 0.001). Here, however, we no longer observe main effects of age or quadratic age on overall memory accuracy. Given the relation we observed between frequency error magnitudes and age, the results from this model suggests that there may be age-related improvements in overall memory that influence both memory for associations as well as learning of and memory for item frequencies. The fact that age no longer relates to overall memory when controlling for frequency error magnitudes suggest that age-related variance in memory for item frequencies and memory for associations are strongly related within individuals. Importantly, however, age-related variance in memory for item frequencies did not explain age-related variance in the influence of frequency condition on associative memory, suggesting that there are developmental differences in the use of knowledge of environmental structure to prioritize valuable information in memory that persist even when controlling for age-related differences in initial learning of environmental regularities. Given the importance of this analysis in elucidating the relation between the learning of environmental structure and value-guided memory, we have now updated the results in the main text of our manuscript to include them. Specifically, on p. 13, we now write:

“Because we observed age-related differences in participants’ online learning of item frequencies and in their explicit frequency reports, we further examined whether these age differences in initial learning could account for the age differences we observed in associative memory. To do so, we ran an additional model in which we included each participant’s mean frequency learning accuracy, mean frequency learning accuracy on the last repetition of each item, and explicit report error magnitude as covariates. Here, explicit report error magnitude predicted overall memory performance, χ2(1) = 13.05, p < 0.001, and we did not observe main effects of age or quadratic age on memory performance (ps > 0.20). However, we continued to observe a main effect of frequency condition, χ2(1) = 19.65 p < 0.001, as well as significant interactions between frequency condition and both linear age χ2(1) = 10.59, p = 0.001, and quadratic age χ2(1) = 9.15, p = 0.002. Thus, while age differences in initial learning related to overall memory performance, they did not account for age differences in the use of environmental regularities to strategically prioritize memory for valuable information.”

In addition, as suggested by the reviewer, we also included the three covariates as control variables in our mediation analysis. When controlling for online frequency learning and explicit frequency report errors, PFC activity continued to mediate the relation between age and memory difference scores. We have now included these results on p. 16 – 17 of the main text:

“Further, when we included quadratic age, WASI scores, online frequency learning accuracy, online frequency learning accuracy on the final repetition of each item, and mean explicit frequency report error magnitudes as control variables in the mediation analysis, PFC activation continued to mediate the relation between linear age and memory difference scores (standardized indirect effect:.56, 95% confidence interval: [.06, 1.35], p = 0.023; standardized direct effect: 1.75, 95% confidence interval: [.12,.3.38], p = 0.034).”

We also refer to these analyses when we interpret our findings in our discussion. On p. 23, we write:

“In addition, we continued to observe a robust interaction between age and frequency condition on associative memory, even when controlling for age-related change in the accuracy of both online frequency learning and explicit frequency reports. Thus, though we observed age differences in the learning of environmental regularities and in their influence on subsequent associative memory encoding, our developmental memory effects cannot be fully explained by differences in initial learning.”

We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion, as we believe these control analyses strengthen our interpretation of age differences in both the learning and use of environmental regularities to prioritize memory.

4. Please include more information on how the four echo time series were combined. What is considered optimal in this regard?

As noted in the manuscript, we preprocessed our data with fMRIprep, which uses the tedana T2* pipeline (Kundu et al., 2011; Kundu et al., 2013; Kundu et al., 2017) to combine the four echoes. Images acquired at longer delays after the excitation pulse (longer echo times) have higher signal dropout but greater BOLD sensitivity. Thus the ‘optimal’ combination of echoes takes a weighted average of the four echoes that balances signal strength and sensitivity for each voxel. More specifically, tedana first fits a model to estimate both the total signal in each voxel before decay as well as the rate at which the signal in each voxel decays over time (Kundu et al., 2017). Then, using the estimate for the rate of signal decay, tedana combines the signals across the four echoes using a weighted average, where the “weight” of each echo is determined by:

where TE is the echo time and T2* is the rate of signal decay.

By weighting the echoes in this way, the combined data (which we use for all analyses) takes advantage of the signal strength of the earlier echoes and the sensitivity of the later echoes. Because signal decay is modeled separately for each voxel, this method of combining echoes enables differential weighting of images acquired at shorter and longer TEs for different regions of the brain. Our description of the combination of the echoes as “optimal” is meant to reflect the fact that the echoes are weighted differently for different voxels, depending on the rate at which the signal within them decays. We have now clarified this in the manuscript on p. 35, and emphasized to the reader where detailed information on the implementation of the multi-echo combination procedure can be obtained. We have also added text detailing the benefits of the use of multi-echo sequences. Specifically, we now write:

“FMRIPrep uses tedana (for implementation details, see Kundu et al., 2013, 2012) to combine each four-echo time series based on the signal decay rate of each voxel, taking a weighted average of the four echoes that optimally balances signal strength and BOLD sensitivity. This approach enables the acquisition of BOLD data with a higher signal-to-noise ratio, giving us greater sensitivity to detect neural effects of interest (Kundu et al., 2013).”

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Before I start critiquing individual components of the study, I want to say I am quite excited about these results, and believe this a very clever design and interesting neuroimaging findings.

1. I found the introduction quite nice, and it really provided a strong foundation for a very timely paper. However, I think more specificity is needed for the predictions based on anatomical targets. For example, the ventral and dorsal lateral PFC are thought to sub-serve quite discrete processes, both of which could be relevant for this study. I think discussing prior work, and the authors own work, with a greater deal of anatomical specificity would help readers better interpret that findings. A similar weakness was in the lack of discussion of where in the prior and work value-related differences emerged. For example there is a lot of discussion of prior work by Davidow and Shohamy, but those all occurred in ventral striatum which does not overlap with the current findings.

We agree with the reviewer that our introduction and discussion would benefit from more anatomical granularity, and we did indeed have a priori predictions about more specific neural regions that might be involved in our task.

First, we expected that both the ventral and dorsal striatum might be responsive to stimulus value across our age range. Prior work has suggested that activity in the ventral striatum often correlates with the intrinsic value of a stimulus, whereas activity in the dorsal striatum may reflect goal-directed action values (Liljeholm and O’Doherty, 2012). In our task, we expected that high-frequency items may acquire intrinsic value during frequency learning that is then reflected in the striatal response to these items during encoding. However, because participants were not rewarded when they encountered these images, but rather incentivized to encode associations involving them, we hypothesized that the dorsal striatum may represent the value of the ‘action’ of remembering each pair. In line with this prediction, the dorsal striatum, and the caudate in particular, have also been shown to be engaged during value-guided cognitive control (Hikosaka et al., 2014; Insel et al., 2017).

We have now revised our introduction to include greater specificity in our anatomical predictions on p. 3:

“When individuals need to remember information associated with previously encountered stimuli (e.g., the grocery store aisle where an ingredient is located), frequency knowledge may be instantiated as value signals, engaging regions along the mesolimbic dopamine pathway that have been implicated in reward anticipation and the encoding of stimulus and action values. These areas include the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and the ventral and dorsal striatum (Adcock et al., 2006; Liljeholm and O’Doherty, 2012; Shigemune et al., 2014).”

Though we initially predicted that encoding of high-value information would be associated with increased activation in both the ventral and dorsal striatum, the activation we observed was largely within the dorsal striatum, and specifically, the caudate. We have now revised our discussion accordingly on p. 26:

“Though we initially hypothesized that both the ventral and dorsal striatum may be involved in encoding of high-value information, the activation we observed was largely within the dorsal striatum, a region that may reflect the value of goal-directed actions (Liljeholm and O’Doherty, 2012). In our task, rather than each stimulus acquiring intrinsic value during frequency learning, participants may have represented the value of the ‘action’ of remembering each pair during encoding.”

Second, while the ventromedial PFC often reflects value, given the control demands of our task, we expected to see greater activity in the dorsolateral PFC, which is often engaged in tasks that require the implementation of cognitive control (Botvinick and Braver, 2015). Thus, we hypothesized that individuals would show increased activation in the dlPFC during encoding of high- vs. low-value information, and that this activation would vary as a function of age. We have now clarified this hypothesis on p. 3:

“Value responses in the striatum may signal the need for increased engagement of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) (Botvinick and Braver, 2015), which supports the implementation of strategic control.”

In our discussion, we review disparate findings in the developmental literature and discuss factors that may contribute to these differences across studies. For example, in our discussion of Davidow et al. (2016), we highlight differences between their task design and the present study, focusing on how their task involved immediate receipt of reward at the time of encoding, while our task incentivized memory accuracy. We further note that studies that involve reward delivery at the time of encoding may engage different neural pathways than those that promote goal-directed encoding. Beyond Davidow et al., (2016), there are no other neuroimaging studies that examine the influence of reward on memory across development. Thus, we cannot relate our present neural findings to prior work on the development of value-guided memory. As we note in our discussion (p. 28), “Further work is needed to characterize both the influence of different types of reward signals on memory across development, as well as the development of the neural pathways that underlie age-related change in behavior.“

2. For the frequency learning task, it would be helpful to report on accuracy and RT for the 5th trial only. It would be extremely important to know if children and adults were entering the second phase of the experiment with the same acquired knowledge, or different amounts of acquired knowledge. If this 5th trial accuracy is different across age groups, the authors need to include this measure as a co-variate in all neural analyses, as age differences in biases towards high frequency information may result from not having learned the information rather than not being able to effectively use the information to guide adaptive encoding.

We continued to observe age differences in frequency-learning accuracy and reaction times (RTs) on the fifth and final presentation of each image (see newly added Figure S2). While age differences in RTs may be reflective of processing or motor response speed, we agree with the reviewer that age differences in accuracy likely indicate that children and adults did not necessarily acquire equivalent knowledge of environmental structure prior to encoding associated information.

Indeed, in our original manuscript, we included a model with participants’ frequency reports as a predictor of memory performance rather than each item’s true frequency. Not only did participant frequency reports predict associative memory, model comparison revealed that they were actually a better predictor of associative memory than each item’s true frequency. Importantly, we observed a frequency report x age interaction effect, indicating that older participants’ demonstrated greater modulation of memory by their beliefs about the structure of the environment. In other words, even when we control for age differences in beliefs about the structure of the environment, older participants continued to demonstrate greater use of beliefs about environmental structure to guide memory. Thus, taken together with our frequency-learning results, we believe results from this model demonstrate that there are age differences both in learning the structure of the environment, and in using learned regularities to guide encoding. Critically, age differences in using these learned regularities emerge even when controlling for age differences in learning. We have now clarified and expanded our interpretation of this model in our manuscript discussion on p. 23:

“Importantly, though we observed age-related differences in participants’ learning of the structure of their environment, the strengthening of the relation between frequency report and associative memory with increasing age suggests that age differences in learning cannot fully account for age differences in value guided memory. Even when accounting for individual differences in participants’ explicit knowledge of the structure of the environment, older participants demonstrated a stronger relation between their beliefs about item frequency and associative memory, suggesting that they used their beliefs to guide memory to a greater degree than younger participants.”

Of course, this model only controls for participants explicit beliefs about the structure of the environment. As the reviewer notes, there may be age differences in online frequency learning that also influence encoding. Further, our neural analyses did not account for age differences in explicit frequency reports. We have now run additional control analyses to account for the potential influence of individual differences in frequency learning on associative memory. Specifically, for each participant, we computed three metrics: (1) their overall accuracy during frequency learning, (2) their overall accuracy for the last presentation of each item during frequency learning (as suggested), and (3) the mean magnitude of the error in their frequency reports. We then included these metrics as covariates in our memory analyses.

When we include these control variables in our model, we continue to observe a robust effect of frequency condition (p < 0.001) as well as robust interactions between frequency condition and linear and quadratic age (ps < 0.003). We also observed a main effect of frequency error magnitude on memory accuracy (p < 0.001). Here, however, we no longer observe main effects of age or quadratic age on overall memory accuracy. Given the relation we observed between frequency error magnitudes and age, the results from this model suggests that there may be age-related improvements in overall memory that influence both memory for associations as well as learning of and memory for item frequencies. The fact that age no longer relates to overall memory when controlling for frequency error magnitudes suggest that age-related variance in memory for item frequencies and memory for associations are strongly related within individuals. Importantly, however, age-related variance in memory for item frequencies did not explain age-related variance in the influence of frequency condition on associative memory, suggesting that there are developmental differences in the use of knowledge of environmental structure to prioritize valuable information in memory that persist even when controlling for age-related differences in initial learning of environmental regularities. Given the importance of this analysis in elucidating the relation between the learning of environmental structure and value-guided memory, we have now updated the results in the main text of our manuscript to include them. On p. 13, we now write:

“Because we observed age-related differences in participants’ online learning of item frequencies and in their explicit frequency reports, we further examined whether these age-differences in initial learning could account for the age differences we observed in associative memory. To do so, we ran an additional model in which we included each participant’s mean frequency learning accuracy, mean frequency learning accuracy on the last repetition of each item, and explicit report error magnitude as covariates. Here, explicit report error magnitude strongly predicted overall memory performance, χ2(1) = 13.05, p < 0.001, and we did not observe main effects of age or quadratic age on memory performance (ps > 0.20). However, we continued to observe a main effect of frequency condition, χ2(1) = 19.65 p < 0.001, as well as significant interactions between frequency condition and both linear age χ2(1) = 10.59, p = 0.001, and quadratic age χ2(1) = 9.15, p = 0.002. Thus, while age differences in initial learning related to overall memory performance, they did not account for age differences in the use of environmental regularities to strategically prioritize memory for valuable information.”

In addition, as suggested by the reviewer, we also included the three covariates as control variables in our mediation. When controlling for online frequency learning and explicit frequency report errors, PFC activity continues to mediate the relation between age and memory difference scores. We have now included these results on p. 16 – 17 of the main text:

“Further, when we included quadratic age, WASI scores, online frequency learning accuracy, online frequency learning accuracy on the final repetition of each item, and mean explicit frequency report error magnitudes as control variables in the mediation analysis, PFC activation continued to mediate the relation between linear age and memory difference scores (standardized indirect effect:.56, 95% confidence interval: [.06, 1.31], p = 0.032; standardized direct effect; 1.75, 95% confidence interval: [.11,.3.52], p = 0.030).”

We also refer to these analyses when we interpret our findings in our discussion. Specifically, on p. 23, we write:

“In addition, we continued to observe a robust interaction between age and frequency condition on associative memory, even when controlling for age-related change in the accuracy of both online frequency learning and explicit frequency reports. Thus, though we observed age differences in the learning of environmental regularities and in their influence on subsequent associative memory encoding, our developmental memory effects cannot be fully explained by differences in initial learning.”

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, as we believe these control analyses strengthen our interpretation of age differences in both the learning and use of environmental regularities to prioritize memory.

3. I think more discussion is warranted on why some neurobehavioral targets show quadratic effects while others show linear. Quadratic effects are often predicted in theoretical models, but from my read on the literature rarely show up in developmental analyses. These data could be leveraged to better understand those models by explaining why some processes are quadratic and others are linear.

We agree with the reviewer that more discussion is warranted here. While many cognitive processes tend to improve with increasing age, the significant interaction between quadratic age and frequency condition on memory accuracy could reflect a number of different patterns of developmental variance. Because quadratic curves are U-shaped, the significant interaction between quadratic age and frequency condition could reflect a peak in value-guided memory in adolescence. However, the combination of linear and quadratic effects can also capture “plateauing” effects, where the influence of age on a particular cognitive process decreases at a particular developmental timepoint. To determine how to interpret the quadratic effect of age on value-guided memory — and specifically, to test for the presence of an adolescent peak — we ran an additional analysis.

To test for an adolescent peak in value-guided memory, we first fit our memory accuracy model without any age terms, and then extracted the random slope across frequency conditions for each subject. We then conducted a ‘two lines test’ (Simonsohn, 2018) to examine the relation between age and these random slopes. In brief, the two-lines test fits the data with two linear models — one with a positive slope and one with a negative slope, algorithmically determining the breakpoint in the estimates where the signs of the slopes change. When we analyzed our memory data in this way, we found a robust, positive relation between age and value-guided memory (see newly added Appendix 2 – Figure 3) from childhood to mid-adolescence, that peaked around age 16 (age 15.86). From age ~16 to early adulthood, however, we observed only a marginal negative relation between age and value-guided memory (p = 0.0567). Thus, our findings do not offer strong evidence in support of an adolescent peak in value-guided memory — instead, they suggest that improvements in value-guided memory are strongest from childhood to adolescence.

To more clearly demonstrate the relation between age and value-guided memory, we have now included the results of the two-lines test in the Results section of our main text. On p. 12 – 13, we write:

“In line with our hypothesis, we observed a main effect of frequency condition on memory, χ2(1) = 21.51, p < 0.001, indicating that individuals used naturalistic value signals to prioritize memory for high-value information. […] Thus, the interaction between frequency condition and quadratic age on memory performance suggests that the biggest age differences in value-guided memory occurred through childhood and early adolescence, with older adolescents and adults performing similarly.”

That said, this developmental trajectory is likely specific to the particular demands of our task. In our previous behavioral study that used a very similar paradigm (Nussenbaum, Prentis, and Hartley, 2020), we observed only a linear relation between age and value-guided memory. Although the task used in our behavioral study was largely similar to the task we employed here, there were subtle differences in the design that may have extended the age range through which we observed improvements in memory prioritization. In particular, in our previous behavioral study, the memory test required participants to select the correct associate from a grid of 20 options (i.e., 1 correct and 19 incorrect options), whereas here, participants had to select the correct associate from a grid of 4 options (1 correct and 3 incorrect options). In our prior work, the need to differentiate the ‘correct’ option from many more foils may have increased the demands on either (or both) memory encoding or memory retrieval, requiring participants to encode and retrieve more specific representations that would be less confusable with other memory representations. By decreasing the task demands in the present study, we may have shifted the developmental curve we observed toward earlier developmental timepoints.

We originally did not emphasize our quadratic findings in the discussion of our manuscript because, given the marginal decrease in memory selectivity we observed from age 16 to age 25 and the different age-related findings across our two studies, we did not want to make strong claims about the specific shape of developmental change. However, we agree with the reviewer that these points are worthy of discussion within the manuscript. We have now amended our discussion on p. 25 accordingly:

“We found that memory prioritization varied with quadratic age, and our follow-up tests probing the quadratic age effect did not reveal evidence for significant age-related change in memory prioritization between late adolescence and early adulthood. However, in our prior behavioral work using a very similar paradigm (Nussenbaum et al., 2020), we found that memory prioritization varied with linear age only. In line with theoretical proposals (Davidow et al., 2018), subtle differences in the control demands between the two tasks (e.g., reducing the number of ‘foils’ presented on each trial of the memory test here relative to our prior study), may have shifted the age range across which we observed differences in behavior, with the more demanding variant of our task showing more linear age-related improvements into early adulthood. In addition, the specific control demands of our task may have also influenced the age at which value-guided memory emerged. Future studies should test whether younger children can modulate encoding based on the value of information if the mnemonic demands of the task are simpler. ”

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion, and believe our additions that expand on the quadratic age effects help clarify our developmental findings.

4. The authors show directly compare the model fits of the mediation models that manipulate directionality.

As noted in the manuscript (p. 16), we found that PFC activity during encoding of pairs involving high- vs. low-frequency items mediated the relation between age and memory differences scores (standardized indirect effect:.07, 95% confidence interval: [.01,.15], p = 0.017; standardized direct effect:.15, 95% confidence interval: [-.03,.33], p = 0.108), but age did not mediate the relation between PFC activity and memory difference scores (standardized indirect effect:.03, 95% confidence interval: [-.007,.09], p = 0.13; standardized direct effect;.34, 95% confidence interval: [.14,.54], p < 0.001.). Directly comparing the fits of the mediation models does not seem possible — In both cases, the full models include the same dependent variable (memory difference scores) and the same two predictor variables (PFC activation and age). Thus, both models will fit the data equivalently well.

However, to further elucidate the directionality of the effects we observed, we examined the AIC difference between the linear regression testing the main effect of the predictor and the linear regression that included the hypothesized mediator to determine the extent to which the mediator improved model fit. Specifically, to examine the extent to which including PFC activation in the model improved the fit of our regression examining the relation between age and memory difference scores, we computed the model AICs with and without PFC activation included as a predictor.

In this case, adding each subject’s PFC activation reduced the AIC by 9.07 and significantly improved model fit (F(1) = 11.39, p = 0.001). Including age as a predictor in the regression examining the relation between PFC activation and memory difference scores only reduced the model AIC by.22 and did not significantly improve model fit (F(1) = 2.17, p = 0.14). Thus, we believe these additional quantitative metrics provide further evidence for the direction of the mediation. These results capture information that is redundant with the mediation analyses included in the manuscript. As such we have chosen not to add them.

5. I found the predictors from the frequency analysis predicting behavior during memory encoding/retrieval to perhaps be the most interesting finding in the paper, especially given that both implicit and explicit measures were predicting memory independently. However, then I was left wanting to know (somewhat desperately!), how much these signals related to the lateral PFC and caudate signals seen during memory encoding. I think this type of analysis would really help make the paper a complete package.

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that it would be interesting to link frequency-learning behavior to neural activity at encoding. As such, we have now conducted additional analyses to explore these relations.

In the original version of our manuscript, we examined behavior at the item level through mixed-effects models, and neural activation during encoding at the participant level. Thus, to examine the relation between frequency-learning metrics and neural activation at encoding, we created two additional participant-level metrics. For each participant we computed their average repetition suppression index, and a measure of frequency distance. The average repetition suppression index reflects the overall extent to which the participant demonstrated repetition suppression in response to the fifth presentation of the high-frequency items, and is computed by averaging each participant’s repetition suppression indices across items. We hypothesized that participants who demonstrated the greatest degree of repetition suppression might be the most sensitive to the difference between the 1- and 5-frequency items, and therefore, show the greatest differences in striatal and PFC activation during encoding of high- vs. low-value information. The frequency distance metric reflects the average distance between participants’ explicit frequency reports for items that appeared once and items that appeared five times, and is computed by averaging their explicit frequency reports for items in each frequency condition, and then subtracting the average reports in the low-frequency condition from those in the high-frequency condition. We hypothesized that participants with the largest frequency distances might similarly be the most sensitive to the difference between the 1- and 5-frequency items, and therefore, show the greatest differences in striatal and PFC activation during encoding of high- vs. low-value information.

We first wanted to confirm that the relations we observed between repetition suppression, frequency reports, and age, could also be observed at the participant level. In line with our prior, behavioral analyses, we found that age related to both mean repetition suppression indices (marginally; linear age: p = 0.067; quadratic age: p = 0.042); and frequency distances (linear and quadratic age: ps < 0.001).

In addition, we further tested whether these two metrics related to memory performance. In contrast to our item-level findings, we did not observe a significant relation between repetition suppression indices and memory (p = 0.83). We did observe an effect of frequency distance on memory performance. Specifically, we observed significant interactions between frequency distance and age (p = 0.014) and frequency distance and quadratic age (p = 0.021) on memory difference scores, such that the influence of frequency distance on memory difference scores increased with increasing age from childhood to adolescence.

We next examined how mean repetition suppression indices and frequency distances related to differential neural activation during encoding of high- and low-value pairs. In line with our memory findings, we did not observe any significant relations between mean repetition suppression indices and neural activation in the caudate or prefrontal cortex during encoding (ps > 0.15).

Frequency distance did not relate to caudate activation during encoding nor did we observe a frequency distance x age interaction effect (ps > 0.16). Frequency distance did, however, relate to differential PFC activation during encoding of high- vs. low-value pairs. Specifically, we observed a main effect of frequency distance on PFC activation (p = 0.0012), such that participants whose explicit reports of item frequency, were on average, more distinct across frequency conditions, demonstrated increased PFC activation during encoding of pairs involving high- vs. low-frequency items. Interestingly, when we included frequency distance in our model, we no longer observed a significant effect of age on differential PFC activation, nor did we observe a significant frequency distance x age interaction (ps > 0.13). These findings suggest that PFC activation during encoding may have, in part, reflected participants’ beliefs about the structure of the environment, with participants demonstrating stronger differential engagement of control processes across conditions when their representations of the conditions themselves were more distinct.

Finally, we examined how age, frequency distance, and PFC activation related to memory difference scores. Here, even when controlling for both frequency distance and PFC activation, we continued to observe main effects of age and quadratic age on memory difference scores (linear age: p = 0.006; quadratic age: p = 0.001). In line with our analysis of the relation between frequency reports and memory, these results suggest that age-related variance in value-guided memory may depend on both knowledge of the structure of the environment and use of that knowledge to effectively control encoding.

We have now added these results to our manuscript on p. 13 – 14. We write:

“Given the relations we observed between memory and both repetition suppression and frequency reports, we examined whether they related to neural activation in both our caudate and PFC ROI during encoding. […] Here, we did not observe a significant effect of age on PFC activation (β = -.03, SE = 0.13, p = 0.82), suggesting that age-related variance in PFC activation may be related to age differences in explicit frequency beliefs. Importantly, however, even when we accounted for both PFC activation and frequency distances, we continued to observe an effect of age on memory difference scores (β = 0.56, SE = 0.20, p = 0.006), which, together with our prior analyses, suggest that developmental differences in value-guided memory are not driven solely by age differences in beliefs about the structure of the environment but also depend on the use of those beliefs to guide encoding.”

We have added the full model results to Appendix 3.

Given these results, we have now revised our interpretation of our neural data. Our memory analyses demonstrate that across our age range, we observed age-related differences in both the acquisition of knowledge of the structure of the environment and in its use. Originally, we interpreted the PFC activation as reflecting the use of learned value to guide memory. However, the strong relation we found between frequency distance and PFC activation suggests that the age differences in PFC activation that we observed may also be related to age differences in knowledge of the structure of the environment that governs when control processes should be engaged most strongly. However, these results must be interpreted cautiously. Participants provided explicit frequency reports after they completed the encoding and retrieval tasks, and so explicit frequency reports may have been influenced not only by participants’ memories of online frequency learning, but also by the strength with which they encoded the item and its paired associate, and the experience of successfully retrieving it.

We have now revised our discussion to consider these results. On p. 23, we now write,

“Our neural results further suggest that developmental differences in memory were driven by both knowledge of the structure of the environment and use of that knowledge to guide encoding.”

On p. 24, we write,

“The development of adaptive memory requires not only the implementation of encoding and retrieval strategies, but also the flexibility to up- or down-regulate the engagement of control in response to momentary fluctuations in information value (Castel et al., 2007, 2013; Hennessee et al., 2017). Importantly, value-based modulation of lateral PFC engagement during encoding mediated the relation between age and memory selectivity, suggesting that developmental change in both the representation of learned value and value-guided cognitive control may underpin the emergence of adaptive memory prioritization. Prior work examining other neurocognitive processes, including response inhibition (Insel et al., 2017) and selective attention (Störmer et al., 2014), has similarly found that increases in the flexible upregulation of control in response to value cues enhance goal-directed behavior across development (Davidow et al., 2018), and may depend on the engagement of both striatal and prefrontal circuitry (Hallquist et al., 2018; Insel et al., 2017). Here, we extend these past findings to the domain of memory, demonstrating that value signals derived from the structure of the environment increasingly elicit prefrontal cortex engagement and strengthen goal-directed encoding across childhood and into adolescence.”

And on p. 25, we have added an additional paragraph:

“Further, we also demonstrate that in the absence of explicit value cues, the engagement of prefrontal control processes may reflect beliefs about information value that are learned through experience. Here, we found that differential PFC activation during encoding of high- vs. low-value information reflected individual and age-related differences in beliefs about the structure of the environment; participants who represented the average frequencies of the low- and high-frequency items as further apart also demonstrated greater value-based modulation of lateral PFC activation. It is important to note, however, that we collected explicit frequency reports after associative encoding and retrieval. Thus the relation between PFC activation and explicit frequency reports may be bidirectional — while participants may have increased the recruitment of cognitive control processes to better encode information they believed was more valuable, the engagement of more elaborative or deeper encoding strategies that led to stronger memory traces may have also increased participants’ subjective sense of an item’s frequency (Jonides and Naveh-Benjamin, 1987).”

6. Regarding the discussion, I think it would be helpful for the authors to discuss a few features of their data and how they relate to development. The first would be the WASI findings which were quite prominent in most analyses, and in a few showed interactions with age. If this measure is a proxy of executive function, discussing the role of executive function for adaptive memory could help provide a more concrete mechanisms of adaptive memory formation across development.

Thank you for this suggestion. The main focus of our study was to examine age-related change in the influence of learned value signals on memory. Because this study was cross-sectional, one concern was that the children, adolescents, and adults that we recruited may have come from different populations. For example, since we conduct recruitment events at local science fairs and tell participants that they will receive a picture of their brain if they come in, one concern was that the children who signed up to participate may have been particularly excited about science and research, and therefore fundamentally different from the adults we recruited, who may have been more motivated by the monetary compensation. Indeed, we did observe a negative relation between age and age-normed IQ in our sample, suggesting the children had slightly higher IQs for their age relative to adults. Thus, we included WASI scores in all of our analyses to account for these age-related differences in IQ. Our aim in including IQ as a control variable was to partially account for confounding, population-level differences across our age groups, enabling us to more clearly examine the relation between age itself and our neurocognitive processes of interest. We did not intend to examine the role of IQ in motivated memory processes.

We have now clarified why we collected WASI data and used the scores in our analyses in our methods section (p. 7):

“Because this study was cross-sectional, one concern was that the children, adolescents, and adults that we recruited may have come from different populations. Indeed, we observed a significant relation between age and age-normed Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI; Wechsler, 2011) scores in our sample (β = -.60, SE = 0.26, p = 0.0238), suggesting the children had slightly higher estimated IQs for their age relative to adults. To account for these age-related differences in reasoning ability, we included age-normed WASI scores as an interacting fixed effect in all analyses. Our aim in including WASI scores as a control variable was to partially account for confounding, population-level differences across our age groups, enabling us to more clearly examine the relation between age itself and our neurocognitive processes of interest.”

That said, as the reviewer notes, we did observe IQ effects across our analyses. However, in our main memory analysis, we observed a main effect of age-normed WASI IQ score on memory accuracy, but no interactions between WASI scores and frequency condition. This pattern of results suggests that individuals with higher IQs were better at forming associations in memory, but not necessarily better at selectively encoding high-value associations. Similarly, we found that individuals with higher WASI scores were also better at learning the structure of the environment, as demonstrated by a main effect of WASI score on frequency report error magnitudes, but the influence of WASI score on frequency report error magnitudes did not vary as a function of age. Taken together, our results are highly consistent with prior studies that have suggested that IQ may relate to learning and memory across development (Deary et al., 2010; Rose et al., 2012).

The reason we have not included a discussion of WASI scores in the manuscript is because our primary goal was to elucidate the relation between age and motivated memory processes. Across our analyses, we observed few interactions between WASI scores and age. We did observe significant interactions between age and WASI scores on differential neural activation within both the caudate and hippocampus during encoding of high- vs. low-value information. We do not have a strong interpretation for these results, so we report them but do not discuss them.

We agree with the reviewer that it would be valuable to identify more concrete mechanisms that drive developmental change in the component processes of adaptive memory. However, as we now clarify in our methods, the purpose of including the WASI was to account for age-related differences in reasoning ability that may confound our interpretation of our age effects. Thus, we do not want to overinterpret our WASI findings.

Additionally, it would be helpful for the authors to discuss the negative findings during retrieval. The fact that these age-related differences in adaptive memory processes are most likely seeming from encoding versus retrieval is not only highly interesting, but are a major prediction that stems from an animal literature on dopaminergic influences on hippocampal-dependent memory.

Most of our hypotheses about age-related change in value-guided memory were about changes in encoding processes. In our whole-brain analyses, we found that neural activation at encoding related to memory difference scores. Neural activation at retrieval, however, did not vary by memory difference scores or by age. Given these findings, we focused our subsequent analyses on encoding.

As the reviewer notes, the animal literature makes interesting theoretical predictions about the role of dopamine in value-guided memory encoding processes. Because we don’t have data that can tie our findings to dopaminergic mechanisms, we refrain from too much speculation. However, we have now revised our discussion to emphasize the specificity of our findings to the encoding phase of the task. We now discuss our retrieval findings in more depth on p. 25:

“During retrieval, we continued to observe increased activation of the caudate and dlPFC for high- vs. low-value pairs. However, this activation did not significantly vary as a function of memory difference scores or age, suggesting that the developmental differences in value-guided memory that we observed were likely driven by age-related change in encoding processes.”

7. It would be helpful to report all behavioral results in the youngest sample only, as the interpretation of the data is quite different if children can or cannot perform these processes.

Thank you for this suggestion. Determining whether the “youngest” participants can or cannot use learned value to influence memory is complicated for several reasons. First, drawing a line to determine who to include in our analysis of the ‘youngest’ participants feels fairly arbitrary — our youngest children included were age 8, but we only have 5 8-year-olds in our sample, and so we would not expect to observe any significant influence of frequency condition within such a small sample. We can include more participants, but by doing so, we then need to add older participants (e.g., 9- and 10-year-olds) to this analysis, potentially muddling what conclusions can be drawn. Thus, we do not believe this question is best answered by statistics — instead, we have chosen to display individual points for each participant that depict their memory performance in Figure 4 on p. 12. Per Reviewer 3’s suggestion, we have also now connected the points belonging to the same participants to more clearly display individual participants’ performance. We believe this plot can give readers the best sense of how participants across our age range performed on the task.

Perhaps more importantly, in line with theoretical accounts of the development of value-guided cognitive control (Davidow, Insel, and Somerville, 2018), we also believe that the specific age at which the ability to use value to guide memory encoding emerges will be highly dependent on the nature of the control demands elicited by the specific task used. For example, younger children may have demonstrated stronger effects of value on memory if they only had to encode two associations (instead of 24), if the stimuli themselves were easier to represent in memory (e.g., child-friendly, nameable objects rather than more abstract images and scenes), or if the value differences were greater (e.g., 1 vs. 10 repetitions instead of 1 vs. 5). Thus, rather than making a claim about the specific age at which motivated memory emerges, we have instead expanded our discussion of this issue on p. 25 – 26 of the manuscript:

“We found that memory prioritization varied with quadratic age, and our follow-up tests probing the quadratic age effect did not reveal evidence for significant age-related change in memory prioritization between late adolescence and early adulthood. However, in our prior behavioral work using a very similar paradigm (Nussenbaum et al., 2020), we found that memory prioritization varied with linear age only. In line with theoretical proposals (Davidow et al., 2018), subtle differences in the control demands between the two tasks (e.g., reducing the number of ‘foils’ presented on each trial of the memory test here relative to our prior study), may have shifted the age range across which we observed differences in behavior, with the more demanding variant of our task showing more linear age-related improvements into early adulthood. In addition, the specific control demands of our task may have also influenced the age at which value-guided memory emerged. Future studies should test whether younger children can modulate encoding based on the value of information if the mnemonic demands of the task are simpler.”

8. Could the authors provide data on differences in behavioral performance for both task content (which could drive motivational differences) or task order (which might lead to practice effects). If notable differences emerge across these factors, I strongly believe they needed to be included as co-variates in ally analyses.

Thank you for raising this important point. During the review process, we also received feedback on our preprint from a colleague who suggested that in addition to including participant random effects in our models, we should also include stimulus random effects (Barr et al., 2013). As noted by the reviewer, task content may influence motivation or memorability — the stimulus-level random effects should account for variance in memory performance that may be driven by differences in how participants encode individual stimuli, beyond any effects of our frequency manipulation. Thus, in our revised manuscript, we have updated our modeling approach accordingly. On p. 33 of our methods section, we now write:

“To determine the random effects structures of our mixed effects models, we began with the maximal model to minimize Type I errors (Barr et al., 2013). We included random participant intercepts and slopes across all fixed effects (except age and IQ) and their interactions. We also included random stimulus intercepts and slopes across all fixed effects and their interactions. Because stimuli were randomly paired during associative encoding and only repeated, on average, around 4 times across participants, our stimulus random effects accounted for individual items (e.g., postcard 1) rather than pairs of items (e.g., postcard 1 and stamp 5). We set the number of model iterations to one million and use the “bobyqa” optimizer. When the maximal model gave convergence errors or failed to converge within a reasonable timeframe (~24 hours), we removed correlations between random slopes and random intercepts, followed by random slopes for interaction effects, followed by random slopes across stimuli. For full details about the fixed- and random-effects structure of all models, see Appendix 3: Full Model Specification and Results.”

Importantly, all of the effects that we reported in the original version of our manuscript hold when accounting for stimulus-level random effects, indicating that our results are robust to individual differences across stimuli.

As the reviewer suggested, we also ran two additional models to test the influence of block order and block type (postcards and stamps vs. pictures and picture frames) on associative memory. We did not observe any significant main effects of or interactions with block order (main effect: χ2(1) = 0.18, p = 0.675, all interaction p values > 0.20), but we did observe a significant block type x frequency condition interaction effect (p = 0.036). This seems to be driven by better memory performance for associations involving low-frequency pictures relative to low-frequency postcards (see newly added Appendix 2 – Figure 5). Importantly, all the other effects in our model (e.g., frequency condition, age x frequency condition, etc.) hold when we account for block type.

A priori, we planned to collapse data across our two blocks for all analyses; we split our experiment into two blocks to make frequency learning and associative memory encoding easier for participants while still ensuring we had enough trials for our neural analyses to be adequately powered — our experiment was not designed to examine the effects of block type or order. However, given that we observed a frequency condition x block type interaction on associative memory, we also examined each participant’s average β weight (parameter estimate) within our PFC ROI for each block separately. We used fslmeants to extract these parameter estimates, and then examined their relations with both age and memory difference scores, which we also computed separately for each block.

Briefly, when we included block type as a covariate in our analyses, we continued to observe significant effects of age and quadratic age on differential PFC activation across frequency conditions during encoding. Further, we continued to observe a relation between PFC activation and memory difference scores, suggesting that differential engagement of the PFC during encoding of high- vs. low-value associations may, in part, account for individual and developmental differences in value-guided memory.

Thus, while we did observe differences in behavior that related to task content, our main conclusions hold when controlling for them. We have now included these additional analyses of task content in Appendix 2: Supplementary Analyses (Because they span four pages, we have not included them here).

We refer to these analyses in our methods, on p. 33:

“Data were combined across blocks (but we include an analysis of block effects on memory performance in Appendix 2: Supplementary Analyses).”

We thank the reviewer for prompting us to more fully examine different influences on memory performance in our task, and believe that these supplementary results provide greater evidence for our central argument.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

1) Empirical findings directly comparing cross-sectional and longitudinal effects have demonstrated that cross-sectional analyses of age differences do not readily generalize to longitudinal research (e.g., Raz et al., 2005; Raz and Lindenberger, 2012). Formal analyses have demonstrated that proportion of explained age-related variance in cross-sectional mediation models may stem from various factors, including similar mean age trends, within-time correlations between a mediator and an outcome, or both (Lindenberger et al., 2011; see also Hofer, Flaherty, and Hoffman, 2006; Maxwell and Cole, 2007). Thus, the results of the mediation analysis showing that PFC activation explains age-related variance in memory difference scores, cannot be taken to imply that changes in PFC activation are correlated with changes in value-guided memory. While the general limitations of a cross-sectional study are noted in the Discussion of the manuscript, it would be important to discuss the critical limitations of the mediation analysis. While the main conclusions of the paper do not critically depend on this analysis, it would be important to alert the reader to the limited information value in performing cross-sectional mediation analyses of age variance.

Thank you for raising this critical point. We have expanded our discussion to specifically note the limitations of our mediation analysis and to more strongly emphasize the need for future longitudinal studies to reveal how changes in neural circuitry may support the emergence of motivated memory across development. Specifically, on p. 26, we now write:

“One important caveat is that our study was cross-sectional — it will be important to replicate our findings in a longitudinal sample to more directly measure how developmental changes in cognitive control within an individual contribute to changes in their ability to selectively encode useful information. Our mediation results, in particular, must be interpreted with caution as simulations have demonstrated that in cross-sectional samples, variables can emerge as significant mediators of age-related change due largely to statistical artifact (Hofer, Flaherty, and Hoffman, 2006; Lindenberger et al., 2011). Indeed, our finding that PFC activation mediates the relation between age and value-guided memory does not necessarily imply that within an individual, PFC development leads to improvements in memory selectivity. Longitudinal work in which individuals’ neural activity and memory performance is sampled densely within developmental windows of interest is needed to elucidate the complex relations between age, brain development, and behavior (Hofer, Flaherty, and Hoffman, 2006; Lindenberger et al., 2011).”

2) It would be helpful to provide more information on how chance memory performance was handled during data analysis, especially as it is more likely to occur in younger participants. Related to this, please connect the points that belong to the same individual in Figure 3 to facilitate evaluation of individual differences in the memory difference scores.

Thank you for raising this important point. On each memory test trial, participants viewed the item (either a postcard or picture) above images of four possible paired associates (see Figure 1 on p. 6). On each memory test trial, participants had 6 seconds to select one of these items. If participants did not make a response within 6 seconds, that trial was considered ‘missed.’ Missed trials were excluded from behavioral analyses and regressed out in neural analyses. If participants selected the correct associate, memory accuracy was coded as ‘1;’ if they selected an incorrect associate, accuracy was coded as ‘0.’ On each trial, there was 1 correct option and 3 incorrect options. As such, chance-level memory performance was 25%. We have now clarified this on p. 34 and included a dashed line indicating chance-level performance within Figure 4 (formerly Figure 3) on p. 12. In addition, we have also updated Figure 4 to connect the points belonging to the same participants, as suggested by the reviewer.

Out of 90 participants, 2 children performed at or below chance (<= 25% memory accuracy). Interpreting the behavior of the participants who responded to fewer than 12 out of 48 trials correctly is challenging. On the one hand, they might not have remembered anything and responded correctly on these trials due to randomly guessing. On the other hand, they may have implemented an encoding strategy of focusing only on a small number of pairs. Thus, a priori, based on the analysis approach we implemented in our prior, behavioral study (Nussenbaum et al., 2019), we decided to include all participants in our memory analyses, regardless of their overall accuracy. However, when we exclude these two participants from our memory analyses, our main findings still hold. Specifically, we continue to observe main effects of frequency condition and age, and interactions between frequency condition and both linear and quadratic age on associative memory accuracy (ps < 0.012).

We have now clarified these details about chance-level performance in the methods section of our manuscript on p. 34.

“For our memory analyses, trials were scored as ‘correct’ if the participant selected the correct association from the set of four possible options presented during the memory test, ‘incorrect’ if the participant selected an incorrect association, and ‘missed’ if the participant failed to respond within the 6-second response window. Missed trials were excluded from all analyses. Because participants had to select the correct association from four possible options, chance-level performance was 25%. Two child participants performed at or below chance-level on the memory test. They were included in all analyses reported in the manuscript; however, we report full details of the results of our memory analyses when we exclude these two participants in Appendix 3 (Table 15). Importantly, our main findings remain unchanged.”

In Appendix 3, we include a table with the full results from our memory model without these two participants.

3) I would like to see some consideration of how the different signatures of value learning, repetition suppression and reported item frequency, are related to the observed PFC and caudate effects during memory encoding. Such a discussion would help the reader connect the findings on learning and using information value across development.

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that it would be interesting to link frequency-learning behavior to neural activity at encoding. As such, we have now conducted additional analyses to explore these relations.

In the original version of our manuscript, we examined behavior at the item level through mixed-effects models, and neural activation during encoding at the participant level. Thus, to examine the relation between frequency-learning metrics and neural activation at encoding, we created two additional participant-level metrics. For each participant we computed their average repetition suppression index, and a measure of frequency distance. The average repetition suppression index reflects the overall extent to which the participant demonstrated repetition suppression in response to the fifth presentation of the high-frequency items, and is computed by averaging each participant’s repetition suppression indices across items. We hypothesized that participants who demonstrated the greatest degree of repetition suppression might be the most sensitive to the difference between the 1- and 5-frequency items, and therefore, show the greatest differences in striatal and PFC activation during encoding of high- vs. low-value information. The frequency distance metric reflects the average distance between participants’ explicit frequency reports for items that appeared once and items that appeared five times, and is computed by averaging their explicit frequency reports for items in each frequency condition, and then subtracting the average reports in the low-frequency condition from those in the high-frequency condition. We hypothesized that participants with the largest frequency distances might similarly be the most sensitive to the difference between the 1- and 5-frequency items, and therefore, show the greatest differences in striatal and PFC activation during encoding of high- vs. low-value information.

We first wanted to confirm that the relations we observed between repetition suppression, frequency reports, and age, could also be observed at the participant level. In line with our prior, behavioral analyses, we found that age related to both mean repetition suppression indices (marginally; linear age: p = 0.067; quadratic age: p = 0.042); and frequency distances (linear and quadratic age: ps < 0.001).

In addition, we further tested whether these two metrics related to memory performance. In contrast to our item-level findings, we did not observe a significant relation between repetition suppression indices and memory (p = 0.83). We did observe an effect of frequency distance on memory performance. Specifically, we observed significant interactions between frequency distance and age (p = 0.014) and frequency distance and quadratic age (p = 0.021) on memory difference scores, such that the influence of frequency distance on memory difference scores increased with increasing age from childhood to adolescence.

We next examined how mean repetition suppression indices and frequency distances related to differential neural activation during encoding of high- and low-value pairs. In line with our memory findings, we did not observe any significant relations between mean repetition suppression indices and neural activation in the caudate or prefrontal cortex during encoding (ps > 0.15).

Frequency distance did not relate to caudate activation during encoding nor did we observe a frequency distance x age interaction effect (ps > 0.16). Frequency distance did, however, relate to differential PFC activation during encoding of high- vs. low-value pairs. Specifically, we observed a main effect of frequency distance on PFC activation (p = 0.0012), such that participants whose explicit reports of item frequency, were on average, more distinct across frequency conditions, demonstrated increased PFC activation during encoding of pairs involving high- vs. low-frequency items. Interestingly, when we included frequency distance in our model, we no longer observed a significant effect of age on differential PFC activation, nor did we observe a significant frequency distance x age interaction (ps > 0.13). These findings suggest that PFC activation during encoding may have, in part, reflected participants’ beliefs about the structure of the environment, with participants demonstrating stronger differential engagement of control processes across conditions when their representations of the conditions themselves were more distinct.

Finally, we examined how age, frequency distance, and PFC activation related to memory difference scores. Here, even when controlling for both frequency distance and PFC activation, we continued to observe main effects of age and quadratic age on memory difference scores (linear age: p = 0.006; quadratic age: p = 0.001). In line with our analysis of the relation between frequency reports and memory, these results suggest that age-related variance in value-guided memory may depend on both knowledge of the structure of the environment and use of that knowledge to effectively control encoding.

We have now added these results to our manuscript on p. 13 – 14. We write:

“Given the relations we observed between memory and both repetition suppression and frequency reports, we examined whether they related to neural activation in both our caudate and PFC ROI during encoding. […] Importantly, however, even when we accounted for both PFC activation and frequency distances, we continued to observe an effect of age on memory difference scores (β = 0.56, SE = 0.20, p = 0.006), which, together with our prior analyses, suggest that developmental differences in value-guided memory are not driven solely by age differences in beliefs about the structure of the environment but also depend on the use of those beliefs to guide encoding.”

We have added the full model results to Appendix 3.

Given these results, we have now revised our interpretation of our neural data. Our memory analyses demonstrate that across our age range, we observed age-related differences in both the acquisition of knowledge of the structure of the environment and in its use. Originally, we interpreted the PFC activation as reflecting the use of learned value to guide memory. However, the strong relation we found between frequency distance and PFC activation suggests that the age differences in PFC activation that we observed may also be related to age differences in knowledge of the structure of the environment that governs when control processes should be engaged most strongly. However, these results must be interpreted cautiously. Participants provided explicit frequency reports after they completed the encoding and retrieval tasks, and so explicit frequency reports may have been influenced not only by participants’ memories of online frequency learning, but also by the strength with which they encoded the item and its paired associate, and the experience of successfully retrieving it.

We have now revised our discussion to consider these results. On p. 23, we now write,

“Our neural results further suggest that developmental differences in memory were driven by both knowledge of the structure of the environment and use of that knowledge to guide encoding.”

On p. 24, we write,

“The development of adaptive memory requires not only the implementation of encoding and retrieval strategies, but also the flexibility to up- or down-regulate the engagement of control in response to momentary fluctuations in information value (Castel et al., 2007, 2013; Hennessee et al., 2017). Importantly, value-based modulation of lateral PFC engagement during encoding mediated the relation between age and memory selectivity, suggesting that developmental change in both the representation of learned value and value-guided cognitive control may underpin the emergence of adaptive memory prioritization. Prior work examining other neurocognitive processes, including response inhibition (Insel et al., 2017) and selective attention (Störmer et al., 2014), has similarly found that increases in the flexible upregulation of control in response to value cues enhance goal-directed behavior across development (Davidow et al., 2018), and may depend on the engagement of both striatal and prefrontal circuitry (Hallquist et al., 2018; Insel et al., 2017). Here, we extend these past findings to the domain of memory, demonstrating that value signals derived from the structure of the environment increasingly elicit prefrontal cortex engagement and strengthen goal-directed encoding across childhood and into adolescence.”

And on p. 25, we have added an additional paragraph:

“Further, we also demonstrate that in the absence of explicit value cues, the engagement of prefrontal control processes may reflect beliefs about information value that are learned through experience. Here, we found that differential PFC activation during encoding of high- vs. low-value information reflected individual and age-related differences in beliefs about the structure of the environment; participants who represented the average frequencies of the low- and high-frequency items as further apart also demonstrated greater value-based modulation of lateral PFC activation. It is important to note, however, that we collected explicit frequency reports after associative encoding and retrieval. Thus the relation between PFC activation and explicit frequency reports may be bidirectional — while participants may have increased the recruitment of cognitive control processes to better encode information they believed was more valuable, the engagement of more elaborative or deeper encoding strategies that led to stronger memory traces may have also increased participants’ subjective sense of an item’s frequency (Jonides and Naveh-Benjamin, 1987).”

4) A point worthy of discussion are the implications of the finding that younger participants demonstrated greater deviations in their frequency reports for the development of value learning, given that frequency reports were found to predict associative memory accuracy.

Thank you for raising this important point. Indeed, one of our main findings is that older participants are better both at learning the structure of their environments and also at using structured knowledge to strategically prioritize memory. In our original manuscript, we described results of a model that included participants’ explicit frequency reports as a predictor of memory. Model comparison revealed that participants’ frequency reports — which we interpret as reflecting their beliefs about the structure of the environment — predicted memory more strongly than the item’s true frequency. In other words, participants’ beliefs about the structure of the environment (even if incorrect) more strongly influenced their memory encoding than the true structure of the environment. Critically, however, frequency reports interacted with age to predict memory (Figure 8). Even when we accounted for age-related differences in knowledge of the structure of the environment, older participants demonstrated a stronger influence of frequency on memory, suggesting they were better able to use their beliefs to control subsequent associative encoding. We have now clarified our interpretation of this model in our discussion on p. 23:

“Importantly, though we observed age-related differences in participants’ learning of the structure of their environment, the strengthening of the relation between frequency reports and associative memory with increasing age suggests that age differences in learning cannot fully account for age differences in value-guided memory. Even when accounting for individual differences in participants’ explicit knowledge of the structure of the environment, older participants demonstrated a stronger relation between their beliefs about item frequency and associative memory, suggesting that they used their beliefs to guide memory to a greater degree than younger participants.”

As noted by the reviewer, however, our initial memory analysis did not account for age-related differences in participants’ initial, online learning of item frequency, and our neural analyses further did not account for age differences in explicit frequency reports. We have now run additional control analyses to account for the potential influence of individual differences in frequency learning on associative memory. Specifically, for each participant, we computed three metrics: (1) their overall accuracy during frequency learning, (2) their overall accuracy for the last presentation of each item during frequency learning (as suggested by Reviewer 2), and (3) the mean magnitude of the error in their frequency reports. We then included these metrics as covariates in our memory analyses.

When we include these control variables in our model, we continue to observe a robust effect of frequency condition (p < 0.001) as well as robust interactions between frequency condition and linear and quadratic age (ps < 0.003) on associative memory accuracy. We also observed a main effect of frequency error magnitude on memory accuracy (p < 0.001). Here, however, we no longer observe main effects of age or quadratic age on overall memory accuracy. Given the relation we observed between frequency error magnitudes and age, the results from this model suggests that there may be age-related improvements in overall memory that influence both memory for associations as well as learning of and memory for item frequencies. The fact that age no longer relates to overall memory when controlling for frequency error magnitudes suggest that age-related variance in memory for item frequencies and memory for associations are strongly related within individuals. Importantly, however, age-related variance in memory for item frequencies did not explain age-related variance in the influence of frequency condition on associative memory, suggesting that there are developmental differences in the use of knowledge of environmental structure to prioritize valuable information in memory that persist even when controlling for age-related differences in initial learning of environmental regularities. Given the importance of this analysis in elucidating the relation between the learning of environmental structure and value-guided memory, we have now updated the results in the main text of our manuscript to include them. Specifically, on p. 13, we now write:

“Because we observed age-related differences in participants’ online learning of item frequencies and in their explicit frequency reports, we further examined whether these age differences in initial learning could account for the age differences we observed in associative memory. To do so, we ran an additional model in which we included each participant’s mean frequency learning accuracy, mean frequency learning accuracy on the last repetition of each item, and explicit report error magnitude as covariates. Here, explicit report error magnitude predicted overall memory performance, χ2(1) = 13.05, p < 0.001, and we did not observe main effects of age or quadratic age on memory performance (ps > 0.20). However, we continued to observe a main effect of frequency condition, χ2(1) = 19.65 p < 0.001, as well as significant interactions between frequency condition and both linear age χ2(1) = 10.59, p = 0.001, and quadratic age χ2(1) = 9.15, p = 0.002. Thus, while age differences in initial learning related to overall memory performance, they did not account for age differences in the use of environmental regularities to strategically prioritize memory for valuable information.”

In addition, as suggested by the reviewer, we also included the three covariates as control variables in our mediation analysis. When controlling for online frequency learning and explicit frequency report errors, PFC activity continued to mediate the relation between age and memory difference scores. We have now included these results on p. 16 – 17 of the main text:

“Further, when we included quadratic age, WASI scores, online frequency learning accuracy, online frequency learning accuracy on the final repetition of each item, and mean explicit frequency report error magnitudes as control variables in the mediation analysis, PFC activation continued to mediate the relation between linear age and memory difference scores (standardized indirect effect:.56, 95% confidence interval: [.06, 1.35], p = 0.023; standardized direct effect; 1.75, 95% confidence interval: [.12,.3.38], p = 0.034).”

We also refer to these analyses when we interpret our findings in our discussion. On p. 23, we write:

“In addition, we continued to observe a robust interaction between age and frequency condition on associative memory, even when controlling for age-related change in the accuracy of both online frequency learning and explicit frequency reports. Thus, though we observed age differences in the learning of environmental regularities and in their influence on subsequent associative memory encoding, our developmental memory effects cannot be fully explained by differences in initial learning.”

We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion, as we believe these control analyses strengthen our interpretation of age differences in both the learning and use of environmental regularities to prioritize memory.

5) It would be helpful to include (supplementary) figures accompanying the behavioral results from the frequency learning phase.

We have now included a supplementary figure (Appendix 2 – Figure 2) showing how accuracy and reaction times during frequency learning vary across age and item appearance counts.

6) Supplementary Figure S2 – providing an (additional) plot of the estimated age effects would help match the displayed results better to the description in the main text.

Thank you for this suggestion. We now include a new figure in the main text of manuscript (Figure 3 on p. 10) that shows neural activation in the parahippocampal cortex in response to all item repetitions, as well as the relation between age and repetition suppression, as suggested.

Author details

1. Kate Nussenbaum

   New York University, New York City, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7185-6880

2. Catherine A Hartley

   New York University, New York City, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   cate@nyu.edu

   Competing interests

   Reviewing editor, eLife

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0177-7295

• 698

  Page views

• 54

  Downloads

• 1

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: PubMed Central, Crossref, Scopus.