1993
DOI: 10.1002/hup.470080305
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contrasting effects of midazolam and nitrous oxide on memory and cognitive bias in dentally phobic patients

Abstract: Dentally phobic patients referred to the Guy's Sedation Unit and control dental patients were presented with lists of dentally related, general threat and neutral words. They were asked either to remember the words (superficial coding) or to rate them for liking (deeper coding). The control patients showed no significant bias in the words remembered, but the phobic patients attending for their assessment interview recognized more dentally related than neutral words, from both superficially and deeply coded lis… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1997
1997
1998
1998

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 16 publications
(14 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, Ramsay and colleagues found that almost twice as many acquisition trials were required lo reach the criterion of learning when participants received 30% N 2 0 rather than a placebo gas (for converging evidence, see Mewaldt, Ghoneim, Korttila, & Petersen, 1988). Nitrous oxide also impairs performance on recall tests (Dwyer, Bennett, Eger, & Heilbron, 1992;File et al, 1993;Ghoneim et al;Mewaldt et al;Ramsay et al) and on recognition tests (Block, Ghoneim, Hinrichs, ct al. ;Dwyer ct al.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, Ramsay and colleagues found that almost twice as many acquisition trials were required lo reach the criterion of learning when participants received 30% N 2 0 rather than a placebo gas (for converging evidence, see Mewaldt, Ghoneim, Korttila, & Petersen, 1988). Nitrous oxide also impairs performance on recall tests (Dwyer, Bennett, Eger, & Heilbron, 1992;File et al, 1993;Ghoneim et al;Mewaldt et al;Ramsay et al) and on recognition tests (Block, Ghoneim, Hinrichs, ct al. ;Dwyer ct al.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%