Memory for emotional images differs according to the presence of depressive symptoms in individuals at risk for dementia

Callahan, Brandy L.; Laforce, Robert; Dugas, Michel J.; Hudon, Carol

doi:10.1017/s1041610216002179

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The only study of the SRE in aMCI to investigate valence (Leblond et al, 2016) indicated that while healthy controls showed no valence preferences, individuals with aMCI exhibited the SRE specifically for positive trait adjectives. This finding is consistent with other research that has shown a positivity bias in aMCI (Brueckner & Moritz, 2009;Callahan et al, 2016 [immediate recall]; Werheid et al, 2010) but inconsistent with other studies indicating a negativity bias (Mah, Anderson, Verhoeff, & Pollack, 2017) or no difference for positive and negative material over neutral stimuli in aMCI (Callahan, Laforce, Dugas, & Hudon, 2017).…”

supporting

confidence: 77%

Self-Reference Effect and Self-Reference Recollection Effect for Trait Adjectives in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment

Carson

Rosenbaum

Moscovitch

et al. 2018

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 77%

Self-Reference Effect and Self-Reference Recollection Effect for Trait Adjectives in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment

Carson

Rosenbaum

Moscovitch

et al. 2018

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results showed a pooled effect size estimate of g = 0.28, 95% CI [0.20, 0.37], 95% PI [−1.21, 1.78], p < .001. Statistical outlier analysis identified nine contrasts from four independent samples (Callahan et al, 2017; Dozois & Dobson, 2001b; Moulds et al, 2007; Sloan et al, 2001) with standardized residual values exceeding 3 (Aguinis et al, 2013; Viechtbauer & Cheung, 2010). These outlying effect size estimates may impact the precision and interpretation of the overall effect size and were excluded from subsequent analyses.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analytic review of the relationship between explicit memory bias and depression: Depression features an explicit memory bias that persists beyond a depressive episode.

Everaert¹,

Vrijsen²,

Martin‐Willett³

et al. 2022

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emotional bias in explicit memory is theorized to play a prominent role in the etiology, maintenance, and recurrence of depression. Even though this cognitive bias is regarded as one of the most robust phenomena in depression, its magnitude and boundary conditions in depression are currently unknown. This review presents two three-level meta-analyses to estimate the overall effect size and identify moderators of explicit memory bias in depression. Meta-analysis I (153 studies, 686 contrasts) revealed a small overall effect size for naturalistic explicit memory bias in depression, g = 0.241, 95% CI [0.179, 0.304]. The magnitude of the overall effect was moderated by emotional valence of stimuli, operational definition of memory bias, depth of processing during encoding, explicit memory task, and the (non-)verbal nature of stimuli. Equivalent effect sizes were found for minors and adults as well as for clinical and subclinical depression. Remarkably, a nonsignificant effect size emerged for remitted depression. Following up on the latter finding, Meta-analysis II (21 studies, 80 contrasts) examined explicit memory bias in remitted depression under naturalistic conditions and under mood/stress induction. Results yielded a nonsignificant overall effect size, g = 0.131, 95% CI [−0.045, 0.307], but a significant effect size for study conditions with mood or stress induction, g = 0.273, 95% CI [0.004, 0.542]. Both meta-analyses indicated high levels of heterogeneity, even after accounting for variation explained by sample and study characteristics. The findings are consistent with the view that depression is characterized by an explicit memory bias that may persist beyond a depressive episode. These findings have implications for cognitive theories of vulnerability to depression as well as clinical interventions.

show abstract

“… No mention of exclusion criteria Vallet et al ( 207 ) Québec 16 M = 78.19, SD = 6.1 F: 11 (68.75%) M: 5 (31.25%) M = 14.94, SD = 4.10 Petersen ( 18 , 23 ) M =28.31, SD = 1.5 M =25.62, SD = 2.1 Observ. Exclusion: Medical history of or currently taking medications for conditions with known sensory or neurological effects; participants with diagnoses of depression and/or anxiety were included if they were stable on medication or non-symptomatic at the time of study Bocti et al ( 208 ) Québec 42 M = 69.62, SD = 9.31 F: 20 (47.62%) M: 22 (52.38%) M = 12.27, SD = 5.07 Chertkow et al ( 130 ) M =27.93, SD = 1.83 M =23.22, SD =3.86 Cross-sect Exclusion: severe psychiatric or systemic disorder, cognitive impairment attributed to large vessel stroke, TBI, alcohol abuse, sleep apnea, or cancer and related treatment Callahan et al ( 209 ) Québec …”

Section: Appendicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the real-world representativeness of participants with mild cognitive impairment in Canadian research protocols: a comparison of the characteristics of a memory clinic patients and research samples

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Studies of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) employ rigorous eligibility criteria, resulting in sampling that may not be representative of the broader clinical population. Objective To compare the characteristics of MCI patients in a Calgary memory clinic to those of MCI participants in published Canadian studies. Methods Clinic participants included 555 MCI patients from the PROspective Registry of Persons with Memory SyMPToms (PROMPT) registry in Calgary. Research participants included 4,981 individuals with MCI pooled from a systematic literature review of 112 original, English-language peer-reviewed Canadian studies. Both samples were compared on baseline sociodemographic variables, medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and cognitive performance for MCI due to Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Results Overall, clinic patients tended to be younger, more often male, and more educated than research participants. Psychiatric disorders, traumatic brain injury, and sensory impairment were commonplace in PROMPT (up to 83% affected) but > 80% studies in the systematic review excluded these conditions. PROMPT patients also performed worse on global cognition measures than did research participants. Conclusion Stringent eligibility criteria in Canadian research studies excluded a considerable subset of MCI patients with comorbid medical or psychiatric conditions. This exclusion may contribute to differences in cognitive performance and outcomes compared to real-world clinical samples.

show abstract

Memory for emotional images differs according to the presence of depressive symptoms in individuals at risk for dementia

Cited by 7 publications

References 53 publications

Self-Reference Effect and Self-Reference Recollection Effect for Trait Adjectives in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment

Self-Reference Effect and Self-Reference Recollection Effect for Trait Adjectives in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment

A meta-analytic review of the relationship between explicit memory bias and depression: Depression features an explicit memory bias that persists beyond a depressive episode.

Evaluating the real-world representativeness of participants with mild cognitive impairment in Canadian research protocols: a comparison of the characteristics of a memory clinic patients and research samples

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About