Oral contraceptives and emotional memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has suggested that oral contraceptive (OC) use is associated with altered memory for an emotional story. The current study further examined the extent to which OCs influence emotional memory by examining the relative recall of positive and negative stimuli and whether memory would be altered for general information (gist) versus specific details of the emotional stimuli used. The study involved the assessment of memory for a visually presented narrated emotional story and an emotional visuospatial task in 135 participants (58 OC users, 40 nonusers, and 37 men). Short-term memory was examined and a surprise recall test was administered one week later to assess recall of positive and negative emotional information, as well as recall of gist versus detail for emotional and neutral information. Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that OC users and men would have enhanced memory for gist in all emotional memory conditions compared to neutral conditions and that nonusers would show the opposite effect, showing enhanced memory for detail in all emotional memory conditions compared to neutral conditions. There was no support for these hypotheses. However, overall, OC users remembered relatively more positive than negative items (or less negative than positive items) than nonusers and men in the emotional visuospatial task. OC users also recalled fewer negatively-valenced items than did nonusers. This finding held even after controlling for group differences in negative affect. The results suggest that OCs may affect the immediate recall of emotional stimuli. These findings may provide insight into the effects of OCs on emotional memory and the emotional and cognitive side effects of OCs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".