Oxazepam and cognitive reappraisal: A randomised experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive reappraisal is a strategy for emotional regulation, important in the context of anxiety disorders. It is not known whether anxiolytic effects of benzodiazepines affect cognitive reappraisal. AIMS: We aimed to investigate the effect of 25 mg oxazepam on cognitive reappraisal. METHODS: In a preliminary investigation, 33 healthy male volunteers were randomised to oxazepam or placebo, and then underwent an experiment where they were asked to use cognitive reappraisal to upregulate or downregulate their emotional response to images with negative or neutral emotional valence. We recorded unpleasantness ratings, skin conductance, superciliary corrugator muscle activity, and heart rate. Participants completed rating scales measuring empathy (Interpersonal Reactivity Index, IRI), anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI), alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20, TAS-20), and psychopathy (Psychopathy Personality Inventory-Revised, PPI-R). RESULTS: Upregulation to negative-valence images in the cognitive reappraisal task caused increased unpleasantness ratings, corrugator activity, and heart rate compared to downregulation. Upregulation to both negative- and neutral-valence images caused increased skin conductance responses. Oxazepam caused lower unpleasantness ratings to negative-valence stimuli, but did not interact with reappraisal instruction on any outcome. Self-rated trait empathy was associated with stronger responses to negative-valence stimuli, whereas self-rated psychopathic traits were associated with weaker responses to negative-valence stimuli. CONCLUSIONS: While 25 mg oxazepam caused lower unpleasantness ratings in response to negative-valence images, we did not observe an effect of 25 mg oxazepam on cognitive reappraisal.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".