Recall of Autobiographical Memories Following Odor vs Verbal Cues Among Adults With Major Depressive Disorder.

Importance: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with deficits in autobiographical memory (AM) recall, which is thought to stem from disruptions in effortful recall. Understanding whether these deficits are mitigated when recall is stimulated more directly, such as by odor cues, could inform therapeutic interventions for MDD. Objective: To evaluate whether deficits in specific AM recall in MDD are mitigated when odor cues vs word cues are used to prompt memory. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed recall of specific AMs in response to both odor cues and word cues (in a randomized, counterbalanced order) in a repeated measures design. Data were collected between September 2021 and November 2022. The study took place at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in Pennsylvania and included adults with a primary diagnosis of MDD, according to the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Data were analyzed from January to June 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was the percentage of specific AMs recalled in response to odor-cued memories vs word-cued memories. Additional outcome measures included ratings of arousal, vividness, repetition, and recall response time for odor-cued memories vs word-cued memories. Results: Thirty-two adults (mean [SD] age, 30.0 [10.1] years; 26 [81.3%] female; 6 [18.8%] male) with a primary diagnosis of MDD completed the study. Participants recalled more specific AMs for odor cues than word cues (mean [SD], 68.4% [20.4%] vs 52.1% [23.3%]; Cohen d, 0.78; P < .001). Additionally, odor-cued recall was rated more arousing (mean [SD], 3.0 [0.8] vs 2.6 [0.7]; Cohen d, 1.28; P < .001) and vivid (mean [SD], 3.3 [0.7] vs 3.0 [0.7]; Cohen d, 0.67; P < .001), and was slower than word-cued recall (mean [SD], 14.5 [3.6] vs 8.9 [3.4] seconds; Cohen d, 1.18; P < .001). When compared with the population mean for word cues in healthy controls (80%), participants recalled fewer specific memories in response to words (Cohen d, 1.18; P < .001), supporting the presence of overgenerality. Notably, the percentage of specific memories recalled in response to odor cues did not differ from the healthy control population mean (Cohen d, 0.26; P = .15). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, adults with MDD recalled more specific AMs in response to odor cues compared with word cues. This study suggests that AM deficits may only be observed when verbal cues are used and provides a potential new method for increasing specific AM recall in patients with MDD.