Diazepam-induced prospective memory impairment and its relation to retrospective memory, attention, and arousal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amnestic effects of benzodiazepines are well documented on a variety of memory tasks. However, prospective memory (PM), or remembering to execute an action at a future time, has not been studied previously. This study examined the effect of diazepam on word list recall, PM, sustained attention, and subjective ratings of arousal. Forty-eight healthy participants, aged 19-35, received an average of 0.19 mg/kg oral diazepam or placebo in a double-blind manner. Retrospective memory and PM were assessed by free recall of unrelated word lists and by instructing participants to request a hidden belonging at the end of the session, respectively. Sustained attention was measured by multiple trials of a digit cancellation task, and subjective arousal was assessed by self-ratings of drowsiness. Diazepam impaired performance on all measures, including PM. Reduced PM performance was associated with decreased subjective arousal in the diazepam group but was unrelated to sustained attention. This is the first report of the effects of benzodiazepines on prospective remembering, and further supports the view that the arousal/attentional system is composed of partially independent subsystems that have differential relationships to 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".