Memory for emotional images differs according to the presence of depressive symptoms in individuals at risk for dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and late-life depression (LLD) have examined the similarities and differences between these syndromes, but few have investigated how the cognitive profile of comorbid aMCI and subclinical depressive symptoms (aMCI/D+) may compare to that of aMCI or LLD. Memory biases for certain types of emotional information may distinguish these groups. METHODS: A total of 35 aMCI, 23 aMCI/D+, 13 LLD, and 17 elderly controls (CONT) rated the valence (positive, negative, or neutral) of 30 pictures from the International Affective Picture System. Mean percent positive, negative, and neutral images recalled was compared within groups immediately and 30 minutes later. RESULTS: Overall memory performance was comparable in aMCI and aMCI/D+, and both recalled fewer items than CONT and LLD. Group differences emerged when valence ratings were considered: at immediate and delayed recall, positive and negative pictures were generally better-remembered than neutral pictures by CONT, aMCI, and LLD, but valence was not associated with recall in aMCI/D+. Follow-up analyses suggested that the perceived intensity of stimuli may explain the emotional enhancement effect in CONT, aMCI, and LLD. CONCLUSIONS: Results support previous research suggesting that the neuropsychological profile of aMCI/D+ is different from that of aMCI and LLD. Although depressed and non-depressed individuals with aMCI recall comparable quantities of information, the quality of the recalled information differs significantly. On theoretical grounds, this suggests the existence of distinct neurobiological or neurofunctional manifestations in both groups. Practically, these differences may guide the development of personalized emotion-focused encoding strategies in cognitive training programs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".