Increased positive emotional memory after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the orbitofrontal cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Several studies have demonstrated increased left orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) activity during negative and depressed mood. These mood states have also been associated with reduced memory for positive emotional stimuli. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether slow, inhibitory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the left OFC would improve memory for positive material. METHODS: We carried out a study with a double-blind, within-subjects design, in which 12 healthy volunteers received 20 minutes of slow rTMS over the left OFC, placebo treatment over the left OFC and rTMS over the left dorsolateral portion of the prefrontal cortex. Effects on memory for fearful and happy faces were investigated. RESULTS: Memory for happy faces was significantly improved after rTMS over the left OFC compared with placebo (t10 = 2.4, p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a role of the OFC in positive emotional memory, which is in accordance with neuroimaging and neuropsychological data. It may be argued that dense projections from the OFC to the limbic emotional circuit are involved in emotional memory and, therefore, play a role in the effects of rTMS that we observed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".