Impact of expressive writing on everyday memory functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The suppression of negative feelings and traumatic events has detrimental effect on mental and physical health. One of the promising techniques to reduce stress related to trauma is expressive writing. Expressive writing has been found successful with different types of maladaptive behaviors e.g., pain, depression, anxiety and cognitive dysfunctioning. Objectives This study investigates the impact of different categories of expressive writing on improving every day memory performance and cognitive functioning. Aims Examining the impact of cognitive functioning and everyday memory. Methods A sample of 90 participants took part in this study. The participants aged (21 and 65 yrs.) 47 of them are females aged between average of (21.64 yrs.), and 43 males aged between average of (21, 49 yrs.). The participants were classified randomly into three groups (a control group, and two experimental groups [pen and oral writing]). The three groups were administered the Every Memory Questionnaire and Taranto Alexithymia Scale. Results The results showed that there were no significant differences among the three groups in each of the Alexithymia and Everyday memory, which indicates random distribution of the three groups. The results showed that both of the experimental groups were improved on everyday memory functioning. More importantly, the results indicated that there were no significant differences between using pen or figures in expressive writing to improve Everyday memory. Conclusion Study results showed the significant impact of expressive writing on every day memory functioning, furthermore, the study results are used to empathize on the cognitive rehabilitation of the individuals as well as to improve self-esteem on general psychological individual cases. Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".