ArticleMolecular psychiatry2025
Temporal interactions between neural proxies for memory recall, negative affect, and emotion regulation in major depression.
Article in Molecular psychiatry, 2025. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dysfunction in emotion regulation (ER) and autobiographical memory are components of major depressive disorder (MDD). However, little is known about how they mechanistically interact with mood disturbances in real time. Using machine learning-based neural signatures, we can quantify negative affect (NA), ER, and memory continuously to evaluate how these processes dynamically interact in MDD. Unmedicated individuals with MDD (N = 45) and healthy volunteers (HV; N = 38) completed a negative autobiographical memory functional magnetic resonance imaging task wherein they recalled, distanced from (an ER strategy), and immersed into memories. We used a negative affect signature (PINES) and an emotion regulation signature (ERS) to quantify moment-to-moment NA and ER. We then examined whether memory engagement, indexed by hippocampal activity, predicted subsequent change in PINES and ERS over time. During memory recall and immersion, greater hippocampal activity predicted increased PINES across groups. During distancing, greater hippocampal activity in HVs predicted increased ERS but not PINES. In MDD, greater hippocampal activity predicted increased PINES but not ERS. Findings suggest abnormalities in the real-time relationship between memory, NA, and ER in MDD. During distancing, as predicted, HVs showed an attenuation of the linkage between memory engagement and NA, and they had subsequent increases in ER following memory reactivation. In contrast, MDD was characterized by continued linkage between memory engagement and NA, without subsequent increases in ER. Deficits in engagement of ER and ineffective modulation of NA following negative memory recall may contribute to the mood disturbances in MDD and are potential targets for clinical intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40181192What 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.