The effect of retrieval‐induced forgetting for pain‐related memories on child pain‐related outcomes: A randomized experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children's inability to forget the negative aspects of a painful event is associated with more anticipatory anxiety at an upcoming pain task and lower pain thresholds; however, the impact of forgetting on children's pain outcomes has not been examined. Retrieval-Induced Forgetting (RIF) was experimentally induced to investigate whether children would (1) forget more negative details of a previous painful autobiographic event and; (2) report better pain-related outcomes for an unrelated pain task (i.e., cold pressor task; CPT). Additionally, it was investigated whether the success of RIF was dependent on child characteristics known to influence children's memories for pain (i.e., attention bias to pain, attention switching ability and pain catastrophizing). METHODS: Healthy school children (N = 128; 9-16 years old) recalled and rehearsed memory details of two painful autobiographical events, while only children in the randomized RIF group rehearsed positive details. All children underwent two CPTs (before and after RIF) and reported pain-related outcomes. Two weeks later, children recalled CPT pain and reported on future pain expectancies. RESULTS: Children in the RIF group remembered less negative details of their past autobiographical pain events, but also reported a greater reduction in pain-related fear from the CPT 2 compared to their ratings for CPT 1, than children in the control group. They furthermore expected less pain-related fear 2 weeks later for a future pain task. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that RIF is a promising avenue in pediatric pain management that could be harnessed to foster more positive memories and better future pain experiences. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) makes children forget negative details of a past autobiographical pain experience, decreases experienced pain-related fear for experimental pain and lowers future pain-related fear expectancies. Results show a promising role for RIF- based memory interventions in the context of paediatric pain care.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".