Imaging Stress Effects on Memory: A Review of Neuroimaging Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review and give an overview of neuroimaging studies that look at the role of stress (hormones) on memory. METHOD: An overview will be given of imaging studies that looked at the role of stress (hormones) on memory. Stress is here defined as the acute provocation of the sympathetic adrenal medullar system and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in experimental designs. Stress hormone levels can be raised endogenously in response to stimulus material (for example, pictures and films) or social evaluative threat situations (stress tasks). Other studies use the exogenous application of drugs to enhance or decrease stress hormone levels. Finally, we review studies on chronic stress and memory. RESULTS: Stress or emotional arousal, leading to increased noradrenaline or cortisol levels, led to better memory performance when it is applied during perception or encoding. Brain regions involved in this process were medial temporal lobe regions such as amygdala and hippocampus, and several parts of the prefrontal cortex (PFC). High stress levels accompanied by high cortisol levels during retrieval led to impaired memory performance. Sex effects on memory as well as lateralization effects on brain activation were found. CONCLUSION: High stress levels during encoding and consolidation of emotional material involve increased amygdala and hippocampus activation. The role of the anterior cingulate cortex and other parts of the PFC during perception and encoding of arousing material appears to be a modulating one. However, additional research is needed to shed more light on the nature of the brain changes during stress, especially during retrieval.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".