Overlapping frontoparietal networks in response to oculomotion and traumatic autobiographical memory retrieval: implications for eye movement desensitization and reprocessing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Oculomotor movements have been shown to aid in the retrieval of episodic memories, serving as sensory cues that engage frontoparietal brain regions to reconstruct visuospatial details of a memory. Frontoparietal brain regions not only are involved in oculomotion, but also mediate, in part, the retrieval of autobiographical episodic memories and assist in emotion regulation.Objective: We sought to investigate how oculomotion influences retrieval of traumatic memories by examining patterns of frontoparietal brain activation during autobiographical memory retrieval in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and in healthy controls.Method: Thirty-nine participants (controls, n = 19; PTSD, n = 20) recollected both neutral and traumatic/stressful autobiographical memories while cued simultaneously by horizontal and vertical oculomotor stimuli. The frontal (FEF) and supplementary (SEF) eye fields were used as seed regions for psychophysiological interaction analyses in SPM12.Results: As compared to controls, upon retrieval of a traumatic/stressful memory while also performing simultaneous horizontal eye movements, PTSD showed: i) increased SEF and FEF connectivity with the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, ii) increased SEF connectivity with the right dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, and iii) increased SEF connectivity with the right anterior insula. By contrast, as compared to PTSD, upon retrieval of a traumatic/stressful memory while also performing simultaneous horizontal eye movements, controls showed: i) increased FEF connectivity with the right posterior insula and ii) increased SEF connectivity with the precuneus.Conclusions: These findings provide a neurobiological account for how oculomotion may influence the frontoparietal cortical representation of traumatic memories. Implications for eye movement desensitization and reprocessing are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".