Reduced directed forgetting for negative words suggests schizophrenia-related disinhibition of emotional cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several psychological and neurobiological models imply that patients with schizophrenia (SCZ) are more inclined to utilize emotional cues as response determinants to the detriment of more task-appropriate cognitive or contextual cues. However, there is a lack of behavioural data from human clinical studies to support this assertion. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the performance of persons with SCZ using tasks designed to index the resolution between competing emotional and cognitive determinants of goal-directed behaviour. METHOD: The current study employed a list-method, emotional directed-forgetting (DF) paradigm designed to invoke inhibitory mechanisms necessary to override emotional memory enhancement for successful task completion. Four psycholinguistically matched lists were constructed that were comprised of five negative, five positive, and five neutral words. RESULTS: Compared with healthy controls, individuals with SCZ showed a reduced DF effect overall. When broken down according to valence, this effect was only observed for negative words, which, in turn, resulted from reduced forgetting of list 1 words following the forget cue. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that individuals with SCZ were less able to engage strategic inhibitory mechanisms for the purpose of overriding recall of negative stimuli when tasks demand call for such action. Thus, our data support the theoretical assertion that SCZ patients have difficulty utilizing cognitive or contextual cues as determinants of goal-directed behaviour in the face of countermanding emotional cues.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".