Emotional memory in patients with agoraphobic panic disorder compared to a control group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Rational minds make logical connections between cause and effect, whereas emotional minds make no such distinctions, following instinctive logic. This paper investigates episodic emotional memory in patients with panic disorder with agoraphobia in comparison to a control group. METHOD: Sixty volunteers, 30 patients with panic disorder with agoraphobia and 30 healthy controls were exposed to the same slideshow of 11 slides, but randomly exposed to two different narrated versions, namely one emotional and one neutral. Each group of 30 participants was randomly subdivided into two subgroups of 15; each subgroup of patients and controls was exposed either to the emotional or to the neutral narrative. One week later patients and controls returned to answer questionnaires about the slides and respective narrated stories. RESULTS: Panic disorder patients exposed to the emotional content of the story showed a significantly enhanced emotional memory, evidenced by a better recollection of the emotional narration when compared to patients exposed to the neutral version. Compared to controls, panic disorder patients exhibited greater discrepancy between the emotional versus the neutral narrative. CONCLUSION: Results showed that the panic disorder patients were significantly impacted by the content of the emotional version of the story, with respect to their emotional memory; the same was not observed for the control group exposed to the same emotional version of the story. We conclude that the characteristics of the panic disorder condition had an influence on emotional 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".