Effects of structure and clustering on recall and recognition memory in clinical depression.

Channon, Shelley; Baker, Jane; Robertson, Mary M.

doi:10.1037/0021-843x.102.2.323

Cited by 28 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the much more elaborated field of memory deficits in depression, Hertel and her collaborators (Hertel, 1997;Hertel & Hardin 1990;Hertel & Rude, 1991) found that depressed participants failed to initiate optional strategies but performed normally when the task itself engaged and directed their use. Related empirical evidence showed intriguing patterns of relations between the degree of structure within memory materials, and impairments under depression: Depressed people, in comparison to controls, demonstrated substantial impairments with moderately structured materials, but no memory deficits under conditions of high degree of structure in the materials (Channon, Baker, & Robertson, 1993;Watts & Cooper, 1989).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intelligence and Cognitive Control

Chuderski

Nęcka²

2010

Handbook of Individual Differences in Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intelligence and Cognitive Control

Chuderski

Nęcka²

2010

Handbook of Individual Differences in Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…External control may substitute for self-initiated control in less-structured situations, whereby performance of participants with depression should increase under controlled conditions -even in resource-demanding tasks (Channon et al, 1993;Hertel & Hardin, 1990) such as PM tasks. Consistent with these conceptual arguments, groups performed at a similar level in the focal condition, whereas, in sharp contrast, only in the nonfocal condition the depressed group performed significantly worse compared to healthy controls.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a consequence, performance in cognitive tasks decreases, when no explicit instructions or task constraints are given that structure and thus control the allocation of resources. Overall, it is assumed that memory deficits in depression depend on the degree to which environmental support (e.g., in form of experimental control) is present and the cognitive tasks require self-initiated, controlled processes (for experimental evidence on retrospective memory see e.g., Channon, Baker, & Robertson, 1993;Hertel & Hardin, 1990).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Event-based prospective memory in depression: The impact of cue focality

Altgassen

Kliegel

Martin

2009

Cognition and Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is the first to compare event-based prospective memory performance in individuals with depression and healthy controls. The degree to which self-initiated processing is required to perform the prospective memory task was varied. Twenty-eight individuals with depression and 32 healthy controls worked on a computerized prospective memory task. Prospective cues were either presented focally or nonfocally to the ongoing activity. Collapsing data across both conditions, controls outperformed individuals with depression in the prospective memory task. Overall, participants showed a poorer prospective memory performance in the nonfocal condition that required self-initiated processing to a higher degree than the focal condition. Importantly, as revealed by a group by task condition interaction, groups did not differ in the focal condition, whereas, controls outperformed individuals with depression in the nonfocal condition. The results are in line with the multiprocess framework of event-based prospective remembering and the cognitive-initiative account of depression-related cognitive deficits. This study is the first to compare event-based prospective memory performance in individuals with depression and healthy controls. The degree to which self-initiated processing is required to perform the prospective memory task was varied. Twenty-eight individuals with depression and 32 healthy controls worked on a computerized prospective memory task. Prospective cues were either presented focally or nonfocally to the ongoing activity. Collapsing data across both conditions, controls outperformed individuals with depression in the prospective memory task. Overall, participants showed a poorer prospective memory performance in the nonfocal condition that required self-initiated processing to a higher degree than the focal condition. Importantly, as revealed by a group by task condition interaction, groups did not differ in the focal condition, whereas, controls outperformed individuals with depression in the nonfocal condition. The results are in line with the multiprocess framework of event-based prospective remembering and the cognitive-initiative account of depression-related cognitive deficits.Word count: 149

show abstract

“…These discrepancies may reflect a number of methodological issues, including variation in diagnostic criteria, test selection and strategies used to perform this task. Executive processes are also likely to contribute to impairments in memory performance (Baudic et al 2004), as depressed participants have been found to show greater impairment in recalling information that benefits from semantic organisation compared to information that does not (Channon et al 1993).…”

Section: Cognitive Deficits In Major Depressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus paper of the WFSBP Task Force on Biological Markers: Biological Markers in Depression

Mößner

Mikova

Koutsilieri

et al. 2007

The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry

226

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological markers for depression are of great interest to aid in elucidating the causes of major depression. We assess currently available biological markers to query their validity for aiding in the diagnosis of major depression. We specifically focus on neurotrophic factors, serotonergic markers, biochemical markers, immunological markers, neuroimaging, neurophysiological findings, and neuropsychological markers. We delineate the most robust biological markers of major depression. These include decreased platelet imipramine binding, decreased 5-HT1A receptor expression, increase of soluble interleukin-2 receptor and interleukin-6 in serum, decreased brain-derived neurotrophic factor in serum, hypocholesterolemia, low blood folate levels, and impaired suppression of the dexamethasone suppression test. To date, however, none of these markers are sufficiently specific to contribute to the diagnosis of major depression. Thus, with regard to new diagnostic manuals such as DSM-V and ICD-11 which are currently assessing whether biological markers may be included in diagnostic criteria, no biological markers for major depression are currently available for inclusion in the diagnostic criteria.

show abstract

Effects of structure and clustering on recall and recognition memory in clinical depression.

Cited by 28 publications

References 9 publications

Intelligence and Cognitive Control

Intelligence and Cognitive Control

Event-based prospective memory in depression: The impact of cue focality

Consensus paper of the WFSBP Task Force on Biological Markers: Biological Markers in Depression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About