Episodic Memory through a Social and Emotional Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Negative emotion enhances item memory but may reduce associative memory. Social information may also enhance memory, yet how social and emotional cues combine to affect memory for focal and surrounding details is unknown. Gender differences may also exist, but whether women and men encode and remember negative and social information differently is unclear. This study examines how social information contributes to or interacts with emotion to influence item and associative memory, and whether gender plays a role in how social and/or emotional information is recognized. Methods: Discovery and replication samples (N=706) were recruited. Stimuli included (1) images with varying social and emotional content categorized into four conditions: negative social, negative non-social, neutral social, neutral non-social and (2) neutral images of objects paired with target stimuli to assess associative memory. Participants viewed the image pairings (Encoding). Twenty-four hours later, item and associative recognition memory were tested. Results: Item recognition memory was better for negative vs. neutral and social vs. non-social images. By contrast, associative recognition memory was worse for negative vs. neutral, but better for social vs. non-social images. Finally, women demonstrated similar item memory performance compared to men but better associative recognition memory performance overall compared to men. Conclusions: Emotional and social cues impart distinct effects on how we form holistic episodic memories, highlighting the importance of considering these critical factors when striving to understand how and what we remember.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".