Emotionality impairs memory for associations - eScholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotionality impairs memory for associations Christopher Madan University of Alberta Christine Lau University of Alberta Jeremy Caplan University of Alberta Esther Fujiwara University of Alberta Abstract: The neural mechanism implicated in the emotional memory enhancement is amygdala modulation of hippocampal learning. However, most emotional memory studies test memory for items only. Because memory for associations is hippocampal-dependent, one would predict an even greater emotional enhancement for association memory than for item memory. Touryan et al. (2007) found emotionality impaired incidental association learning between peripheral neutral objects and central emotional scenes, despite enhanced memory for the emotional scenes themselves. Here we ask whether this detriment might turn into an enhancement effect for associative memory, a hippocampal-dependent memory function, if the associated information is central to the task and association learning is intentional. Instead we found that the detrimental effect holds even in this stronger test of the amygdala- hippocampal circuit, suggesting that amygdala enhancement of hippocampal function can be overridden by a bias to process emotional items at the expense of associations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".