Item-method directed forgetting is (usually) impaired in clinical populations: A meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The item-method directed forgetting paradigm is a common laboratory task used to measure memory control. While impaired memory control may contribute to the development and/or maintenance of a variety of psychological disorders, comparisons between clinical and nonclinical groups using this paradigm have been inconsistent-even within the same disorder. A systematic search for related articles utilizing clinical populations was conducted revealing 823 articles of which 36 met inclusion criteria. Raw mean differences were calculated and aggregated using Bayesian multilevel random-effects models. These models revealed a significant difference in the magnitude of directed forgetting between clinical and control populations, such that clinical populations (collapsing across all disorders or combining only the critical anxiety and depression clusters) exhibited a reduced directed forgetting effect. This difference tended to be larger in clinical (as opposed to clinical-analog) populations and in older samples. These results support the notion that item-method directed forgetting provides a suitable measure of memory control sensitive to real-world control deficits and further implies that memory control deficits may contribute to mental illness (although causality remains to be determined). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.020 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".