The Effect of Retrieval Focus and Emotional Valence on the Inferior Frontal Cortex Activity during Autobiographical Recollection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although available evidence points to a role of the inferior frontal cortex (IFC) in both emotion processing and autobiographical memory (AM) recollection, it is unclear what the role of this region is in emotional AM recollection. The present study investigated whether IFC activity can be influenced by manipulations of the retrieval focus (emotional vs. non-emotional) and whether this influence is similar for AMs with positive and negative emotional valence. Participants were asked to focus either on emotional (Emotion condition) or on non-emotional contextual (Context condition) details during the elaboration of positive and negative AMs, while fMRI data were collected. The study yielded two main findings: (1) Focusing on Emotion compared to Context during AM recollection was associated with increased activity in bilateral IFC, for positive AMs, whereas negative AMs produced similarly high IFC activity during Emotion and Context conditions; (2) There was a hemispheric dissociation in the IFC linked to the experiencing of emotion and the focus of AM recollection, such that the left IFC activity correlated positively with the subjective re-experience of emotion during the Emotion condition, whereas the right IFC activity correlated negatively with the subjective re-experience of emotion during the Context condition, for both positive and negative AMs. Overall, the present findings suggest that IFC's involvement during the recollection of emotional AMs is susceptible to manipulations of the retrieval focus only in the case of positive AMs, and that this region plays a role in both the enhancement and inhibition of emotional experience during AM recollection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".