Modes of Remembering in Patients With Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of our study was to assess the relation of current pain ratings to observer versus field modes of memory retrieval in patients with chronic pain. Memories from an observer perspective involve seeing oneself in the original event as if from an external point of view; memories from a field perspective involve recalling the event as if viewing it through one's own eyes. Sixty-one patients with chronic pain were asked to (1) recall a painful memory, (2) indicate whether they saw themselves in the memory (observer mode) or re-experienced events of the memory from the first-person perspective (field mode), and (3) rate various phenomenologic properties of the memory. Twenty of these pain patients were also given two frontal lobe tests to examine potential neuropsychologic correlates of memory retrieval preferences. Memory retrieval in the field mode was associated with (a) significantly higher self-reported pain scores on the McGill Pain Questionnaire, (b) nonright-handedness, and (c) poorer performance on the tests of frontal function. Patients with chronic pain who adopt the field mode of memory retrieval when recalling painful memories experience greater current pain severity than chronic pain patients who adopt observer retrieval strategies. Those adopting field retrieval strategies may also evidence frontal system neuropsychologic anomalies.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".