Hippocampal morphology mediates biased memories of chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiences and memories are often mismatched. While multiple studies have investigated psychological underpinnings of recall error with respect to emotional events, the neurobiological mechanisms underlying the divergence between experiences and memories remain relatively unexplored in the domain of chronic pain. Here we examined the discrepancy between experienced chronic low back pain (CBP) intensity (twice daily ratings) and remembered pain intensity (n = 48 subjects) relative to psychometric properties, hippocampus morphology, memory capabilities, and personality traits related to reward. 77% of CBP patients exaggerated remembered pain, which depended on their strongest experienced pain and their most recent mood rating. This bias persisted over nearly 1 year and was related to reward memory bias and loss aversion. Shape displacement of a specific region in the left posterior hippocampus mediated personality effects on pain memory bias, predicted pain memory bias in a validation CBP group (n = 21), and accounted for 55% of the variance of pain memory bias. In two independent groups (n = 20/group), morphology of this region was stable over time and unperturbed by the development of chronic pain. These results imply that a localized hippocampal circuit, and personality traits associated with reward processing, largely determine exaggeration of daily pain experiences in chronic pain patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".