Beta-adrenergic Blockade at Memory Encoding, but Not Retrieval, Decreases the Subjective Sense of Recollection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans remember emotional events not only better but also exhibit a qualitatively distinct recollective experience-that is, emotion intensifies the subjective vividness of the memory, the sense of reliving the event, and confidence in the accuracy of the memory [Phelps, E. A., & Sharot, T. How (and why) emotion enhances the subjective sense of recollection. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 147-152, 2008]. Although it has been demonstrated that activation of the beta-adrenergic system, linked to increases in stress hormone levels and physiological arousal, mediates enhanced emotional memory accuracy, the mechanism underlying the increased subjective sense of recollection is unknown. Behavioral evidence suggests that increased arousal associated with emotional events, either at encoding or retrieval, underlies their increased subjective sense of recollection. Using a double-blind, placebo-controlled, within-subject design, we showed that reducing arousal at encoding through oral intake of 80-mg of the beta-adrenergic receptor antagonist propranolol decreases the subjective sense of recollection for both negative and neutral stimuli 24 hr later. In contrast, administration of propranolol before memory retrieval did not alter the subjective sense of recollection. These results suggest that the neurohormonal changes underlying increased arousal at the time of memory formation, rather than the time of memory retrieval, modulate the subjective sense of 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 | 0.001 | 0.019 |
| 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".