Reversing the signaled magnitude effect in delayed matching to sample: delay-specific remembering.

Geoffrey and team worked with pigeons on a delayed matching-to-sample task. Birds first saw a color sample, then waited 0–10 seconds before picking the matching color.

Mid-delay, a cue appeared that signaled either a big or small grain payoff. The cue could flip halfway through the wait. The question: would the size cue change how well birds remembered the sample?

When the cue switched from big to small payoff, accuracy dropped right after the switch. When it switched from small to big, accuracy jumped. Memory strength tracked the current payoff cue, not how long the bird had waited.

In short, remembering was on-line and delay-specific, not a slow fade with time.

Rider et al. (1984) showed accuracy drops in a smooth curve as delays grow. Geoffrey et al. now prove that curve can be bent upward or downward at any moment by a payoff cue, so the decay is not clock-driven.

Thrailkill et al. (2025) extends the idea: payoff probability history, not just size, can later steer which part of a compound stimulus birds notice. Together the papers show reinforcer signaling rapidly retunes stimulus control.

Jones et al. (1992) used a forget cue mid-delay and saw selective memory loss. Geoffrey et al. flip the script: a big-reward cue mid-delay can suddenly boost memory, revealing the same flexible, cue-gated control.

If you run matching tasks with clients, know that promised payoff size can instantly shift accuracy. You can boost memory by flashing a high-payoff cue or protect it by keeping payoff cues steady. Treat remembering as a switchboard, not an hourglass.