We applaud Mahr & Csibra (M&C) for taking an innovative and comprehensive look at the communicative function of episodic memory. However, to understand the communicative function of memory, it may be especially useful to draw upon insights from research on destination memory, especially research that explores the relationship between destination memory and social communication.

Destination memory refers to the ability to remember to whom one has sent information (e.g., “Did I tell John or Mary about the conference?” “Did I send that email to John or Mary?”) (Brown et al. Reference Brown, Hornstein and Memon2006; El Haj & Miller Reference El Haj and Miller2017; Gopie et al. Reference Gopie, Craik and Hasher2010; Gopie & Macleod Reference Gopie and Macleod2009; Hornstein & Mulligan Reference Hornstein and Mulligan2004; Koriat et al. Reference Koriat, Ben-Zur and Druch1991; Koriat et al. Reference Koriat, Ben-Zur and Sheffer1988). Destination memory can be considered as a facet of episodic memory because destination memory allows fuller reconstruction of the context in which an episodic event has occurred (El Haj et al. Reference El Haj, Allain and Kessels2014). Unlike other components of the episodic system (e.g., memory of the where and when), destination memory centrally involves social communication. In our daily lives, we constantly relay information to family members, colleagues, friends, and/or strangers. A typical illustration of costs that may result from distortions in destination memory is expecting a report from a colleague when we initially asked another colleague to prepare it. Another consequence of destination memory distortions on social communication is redundancy, that is, the tendency to repeat the same information to the same receiver, a behavior that is often observed in amnesia (El Haj et al. Reference El Haj, Kessels, Matton, Bacquet, Urso, Cool, Guidez, Potier, Nandrino and Antoine2016; Reference El Haj, Altman, Bortolon, Capdevielle and Raffard2017a). These examples illustrate how important destination memory can be for communication.

Communication is a core concept of the target article. M&C propose an original account that views episodic memory as a mechanism supporting human communication. At the heart of their account, episodic memory serves people in asserting epistemic authority about the past. In our view, this asserting of authority can be enhanced by attributing information to its appropriate destination. For example, I am sure (asserting epistemic authority) that John was present during the meeting as I remember asking him (destination memory) to bring the report. More specifically, M&C suggest that, in order to assume this epistemic authority, humans have evolved a suite of social capacities that allow them to scrutinize their interlocutors. In our view, these abilities can be better understood by highlighting how destination memory can be related with our ability to scrutinize affective and cognitive states of interlocutors. Specifically, destination memory can be influenced by our ability to assess affective and cognitive states of interlocutors. In line with this suggestion, research has demonstrated how destination memory can be influenced by our familiarity with interlocutors, stereotypes that are associated with them, and their emotional states, as well as by our ability to infer and predict what they know (i.e., theory of mind). Also, studies have found that destination memory can be influenced by deception.

To begin with familiarity, research demonstrates higher destination memory for familiar than for unfamiliar interlocutors (El Haj et al. Reference El Haj, Omigie and Samson2015c). Turning to stereotypes, experiments have found better destination memory for stereotype-consistent facts (e.g., facts concerning mechanics that were previously told to a mechanic) than for stereotype-inconsistent facts (e.g., facts concerning mechanics that were previously told to a physician) (El Haj Reference El Haj2017). As for emotion, studies have observed superior memory for facts told to negative (e.g., sad) than to positive (e.g., happy) faces and more robust memory for facts told to positive rather than to neutral faces in healthy older adults (El Haj et al. Reference El Haj, Fasotti and Allain2015a; Reference El Haj, Raffard, Antoine and Gely-Nargeot2015d). These findings suggest that emotion plays an important role in destination memory in normal, elderly adults. As for theory of mind, this ability can be related to destination memory because both abilities require processing attributes of interlocutors during social communication (El Haj et al. Reference El Haj, Gely-Nargeot and Raffard2015b; Reference El Haj, Raffard and Gely-Nargeot2016). As for deception, research demonstrates better destination memory in individuals with a high tendency to deceive (El Haj et al. Reference El Haj, Antoine and Nandrino2017b; Reference El Haj, Saloppé and Nandrino2017c). According to this research, individuals with a strong tendency to deceive keep track of the destination of both true and incorrect information in order to be consistent in their future social interactions, and thus to avoid discovery of their deception. Taken together, destination memory seems to be influenced by social, cognitive, and affective characteristics of our interlocutors, as well as by our own ability to infer these characteristics during social interactions.

In summary, M&C propose an original account that views episodic memory as a mechanism supporting human communication. According to the authors, episodic recall during social communication serves us in asserting epistemic authority about the past. In our view, this asserting of authority can be further enhanced by remembering to whom information was previously transmitted (e.g., destination memory). Being able to convince others that we are indeed remembering the destination of prior communications is important insofar as it helps us to convince our interlocutors of the accuracy of present communications. Besides its influence on our interlocutors, destination memory can be influenced by our interlocutors (i.e., familiarity of our interlocutors; their social, cognitive, and affective characteristics; and our own ability to infer these characteristics). Together, destination memory and episodic memory in general can be considered not only as a mechanism influencing human communication, but also as a mechanism influenced by this communication. By demonstrating the bidirectional relationship between memory and communication, consideration of destination memory adds to the impressive work by M&C that focuses on how memory influences communication.