The role of metamemory in autobiographical memory performance in dysphoric individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autobiographical memory (AM) performance in individuals with depressive symptoms has repeatedly been shown to be overgeneral (OGM) in nature, and characterized by summaries of repeated events or long periods of time rather than a single event tied to a unique spatial and temporal context. The present body of work was designed to address the metamnemonic aspects of AM performance in dysphoric individuals, with the underlying motivation being that OGM may not be a unique phenomenon specific to depression or AM, and that it may reflect a more general pattern of memory impairment. The studies presented herein examine various aspects of metamemory and other memory processes that may offer a parsimonious account of OGM as poor event memory in general, rather than a specific standalone finding. In Study 1 several metamnemonic processes were investigated using a quantity-accuracy profile approach. Here, the results showed that performance between dysphoric and non-dysphoric participants was nearly indistinguishable on measures of calibration, resolution, grain-size setting, and criterion setting, suggesting that these aspects of metamemory are intact in dysphoria for immediately tested material. Study 2 examined whether it is possible to “create” OGMs by employing a delay manipulation for both autobiographical (3 day delay) and laboratory-based events (7 day delay). Indeed, the results from this study showed that the performance on both tasks declines for both groups, but that this effect was of a greater magnitude in the dysphoric group. Critically, no differences emerged for immediately tested information. Finally, Study 3 examined the role of working memory and memory search strategies in the recollection of autobiographically relevant information. The results from Study 3 showed that dysphoric individuals may engage in a less organized search strategy than non-dysphoric participants as exhibited by a tendency to switch set in the midst of thematically related information. Taken as a whole, these data indicate that OGM may be attributable to deficits in memory search strategies in conjunction with memories that may be more prone to decay and/or forgetting, suggesting that OGM may not be a depression-specific phenomenon, but rather the downstream deficit of degraded memory representation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".