True and false memories in adolescents with psychosis: Evidence for impaired recollection and familiarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Psychotic patients are impaired on recall and recognition of studied items (true memory) and typically make more false recall (intrusions) and false recognition than controls, reflecting greater susceptibility to false memory. The functional mechanisms underlying these deficits are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to examine recollection and familiarity in true and false memory in psychotic adolescents without long-term exposure to medication and repeated hospitalisations. METHODS: Seventeen adolescents with psychosis and 17 matched controls were tested on a DRM false memory paradigm combined with a remember (R)/know (K)/guess (G) procedure. Recall and recognition of targets (studied words), critical lures (associated words) and unrelated distractors were measured. Between-group comparisons were made using t-tests and mixed ANOVAs. Independent estimates for recollection and familiarity were also calculated. RESULTS: True memory was impaired in patients. Similar rates of false memory for critical lures were found in both groups. False memory for unrelated distractors was increased in patients. Contrary to controls, who attributed more R and K responses to targets than lures, patients attributed similar proportions of R and K responses to targets and lures. Furthermore, patients attributed more K responses than controls to all distractors. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a deficit in recollection- and familiarity-based memory in psychotic adolescents as well as reliance on preserved gist or meaning-based memory to support poor item-specific memory.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".