ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Cognitive manipulation of emotional and non-emotional information in working memory of patients with depression: a rigid processing style.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cognitive psychology is one of the important perspectives to understand depression. Compared with previous studies, recent researchers increasingly focused on the exploration of the comprehensive cognitive process of patients with depression. The cognitive operation ability of working memory is an important comprehensive cognitive process, which reflects how individuals establish representations. This is the basis for the formation of experience and schema. The purpose of this study is to explore whether there are abnormalities in cognitive manipulation in patients with depression, and to analyze its possible role in the pathogenesis and maintenance of depression. Method: In this cross-sectional study, depressed patients was enrolled in the clinical psychology department of Beijing Chaoyang Hospital as the case group, while healthy individuals were recruited in the hospital and social meetings as the control group. Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD)-17, Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) and rumination thinking scale (RRS) were adopted as measurement tools, and working memory operation tasks were adopted to test each subject, so as to measure their cognitive operation ability. Result: A total of 78 depressed patients and 81 healthy individuals completed the study. The results showed that the rumination level of the case group was higher than that of the control group, and the difference was significant first; Second, in the "inconsistent" condition, the case group under different stimulus conditions when the response was significantly higher than the control group; Thirdly, the "cognitive operation consumption" value of the case group was significantly higher than that of the control group under the three stimulus conditions, among which, the operational cost value of sadness-neutral stimulus was significantly higher than that of the other two stimulus conditions. Conclusion: Patients with depression had obvious difficulties in cognitive manipulation of information with different values in working memory, which reflected in the fact that it took them longer time to adjust the relationship between information and established new representations. Among them, patients with depression had a higher degree of cognitive manipulation of sad stimuli, indicating that their abnormal cognitive manipulation had certain emotion specificity. Finally, the difficulty of cognitive operation was closely related to the level of rumination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.