抑郁症患者的自传体记忆特征及其应用自传体记忆测验的元分析

研究目的在于探讨抑郁症患者自传体记忆的特征以及自传体记忆测验(the autobiographical memory test, AMT)在该领域的应用情况。通过文献检索, 搜集了18篇应用AMT作为测评工具的抑郁症自传体记忆研究, 抑郁症患者566人, 正常对照组457人。元分析研究发现, 和正常对照组比较, 抑郁症组的具体性记忆减少, 概括化记忆增多, 反应迟缓。目前对这种现象的解释主要有功能性回避模型、认知执行受损模型和沉思模型; 年龄、抑郁情绪以及AMT测试程序对测试结果有明显影响; 发表偏倚和敏感性分析显示存在发表偏倚, 但稳定性较好。AMT在抑郁症研究存在灵敏度不足等局限, 作者从AMT程序、研究设计等方面提出了改善建议。     

自我、文化与记忆：自传体记忆的跨文化研究

自传体记忆不仅是对过去自我经验的加工和提取,还反映了特定的社会和文化背景。近年来,自传体记忆跨文化研究表明,东西方被试在最早记忆年龄、记忆容量和具体性、内部语言的使用、记忆取向等方面存在差异。文章从自我概念、亲子回忆和叙事方式、社会变迁和文化多元化等角度,探讨了文化自我观对于自传体记忆的核心意义。Nelson和Fivush的社会文化发展观则从发展的角度动态考察了内外因素对自传体记忆产生文化和个体差异的机制。文章还回顾了自传体记忆跨文化研究的主要方法。最后,文章探讨了自传体记忆跨文化及相关领域的研究前景和存在的问题     

不随意自传体记忆研究述评

不随意自传体记忆指,个人过去经历的事件在没有主动提取的情况下自动浮现于脑海的记忆现象。文章从不随意自传体记忆的研究方法、记忆特点和理论解释三个方面,分别介绍结构日记、词汇联想、栅栏任务和压力电影范式等研究方法;说明了不随意自传体记忆提取直接性、内容具体性和情绪影响性等特性,认为其原因是记忆内容的非整合性和显著联结;阐述了全局工作空间智能分布模型、双重表征理论和认知模型理论及其解释能力理论与不足。最后指出未来研究应关注特殊性质的解释、记忆结构整合和记忆的功能探究。     

基于气味的自传体记忆提取时间分析

为检验普鲁斯特效应提取是否存在气味辨别确定的决策阶段,在实验一和实验二中分别以气味、气味词和不同辨认度的气味为线索,设置干扰任务,考察自传体记忆基于气味线索回忆的提取时间差异。实验一发现,语词标签和气味不一致条件,自传体记忆提取时间出现干扰效应,而气味一致条件未出现。实验二发现,难、易辨认度气味均有干扰效应。表明普鲁斯特效应提取存在气味辨别确定的决策阶段,它是气味本身和气味辨别确定所激活的气味语义表征促进了自传体记忆提取的“双加工”机制。     

自我概念对自传体记忆的影响：来自藏族和汉族青少年的比较研究证据

共有136名藏族和139名汉族青少年参与本实验。研究使用指导语启动方法控制自我概念,把被试随机分到独立取向、互依取向和控制组。之后使用线索词技术,对自传体记忆进行测量,考察自我概念启动对自传体记忆的影响。结果表明,自我概念启动对藏族和汉族青少年的自传体记忆内容描述的自主取向产生了启动效应。自我概念启动对于藏族被试自传体记忆社会事件报告的影响较弱。藏族青少年的自传体记忆与自我概念存在一定程度的分离现象,其自传体记忆的社会性可能更多受到个体的文化建构影响,一定意义上表明自我概念和自传体记忆的联系具有文化差异性。     

创伤青少年自传体记忆具体性减少：情感调节还是执行控制受损

结合经典的自传体记忆测验(AMT)和反转-自传体记忆测验(AMT-R)探究创伤青少年自传体记忆具体性减少的原因。首先通过创伤事件终身经历问卷-学生版(LIET-S)和创伤后症状自评量表(CROPS)对630名青少年进行筛查, 然后结合访谈, 并采用儿童事件冲击量表-修订版(CRIES)测量创伤程度, 最终选取有创伤后症状的青少年63名, 分为高创伤组和低创伤组, 另无创伤经历的青少年30名作为控制组。三组被试均参加AMT和AMT-R实验。结果发现, 在AMT中, 创伤青少年表现出自传体记忆具体性减少的特点, 且创伤后症状越严重, 具体性减少越明显; 在AMT-R中, 创伤青少年提取的具体记忆数量与控制组无显著差异。结果表明, 创伤青少年自传体记忆具体性的减少是情感调节的结果。     

压抑者对情绪和非情绪自传体记忆的提取诱发遗忘

该实验考察了压抑应对方式,高焦虑和低焦虑三组被试对不同情绪性自传体记忆的提取诱发遗忘的差异。结果表明,与情绪性自传体记忆比较,被试能回忆出更多非情绪性自传体记忆;正性,负性和非情绪性自传体记忆均能得到显著的提取诱发遗忘,但是提取练习对正性和非情绪性事件的回忆率的促进弱于负性事件。压抑者的提取诱发遗忘效应要小于另外两组,且对于负性自传体记忆,压抑者没有产生提取诱发遗忘。     

自传体记忆功能对失独者延长哀伤的影响:家族主义情感的调节作用

为厘清自传体记忆功能对失独者延长哀伤的影响,以及家族主义情感在其中的调节作用,本研究采用生活经历回想问卷、家族主义情感量表和延长哀伤问卷对372名失独者进行调查。结果发现：（1）失独者自传体记忆的自我功能、社会功能和指导功能均能负向预测其延长哀伤水平;（2）家族主义情感在自传体记忆的自我功能和指导功能对失独者延长哀伤的影响中起调节作用,对家族主义情感水平高的失独者来说,自传体记忆的自我功能和指导功能能负向预测其延长哀伤水平,但对家族主义情感水平低的失独者来说,自传体记忆的自我功能和指导功能对其延长哀伤水平没有预测作用;（3）对罹患延长哀伤障碍的失独者来说,自传体记忆功能对延长哀伤水平的预测作用和家族主义情感的调节作用均不显著。     

成年女性情景自传体记忆的现象学体验：年龄与时间的作用

目的：考察成年女性情景自传体记忆(EAM)的现象学体验是否受年龄和事件发生时间的影响。方法：95名老、中、青年女性被试详细回述童年及近一年的自传体事件各一件,并完成自传体记忆问卷。结果：所有被试在近期记忆的大多数体验得分上显著高于童年期记忆,年龄主效应及交互作用不显著。在近期记忆的情绪体验上,中、老年女性比青年女性更积极。结论：成年女性EAM的现象学体验受时间影响明显,受年龄影响不大;中、老年女性的EAM现象学体验表现出一定的积极情绪偏向。     

Direct and generative autobiographical memory retrieval: How different are they?

Theories of autobiographical memory have emphasised effortful generative retrieval, but recent research indicates that subjectively effortless direct retrieval is common. We compared the processes of direct and generative retrieval. Sixty-five participants retrieved 24 autobiographical memories across three cue types: concrete, emotional, and personal. We recorded retrieval latency, and participants judged direct versus generative retrieval and rated memory specificity, vividness, significance, rehearsal, and emotionality. Overall, direct retrieval was common, especially for personal cues. Directly retrieved memories were recalled faster, were less likely to be specific, and were rated more significant, rehearsed, and emotional than generatively retrieved memories. The speed of both direct and generative retrieval varied similarly according to cue type, suggesting they did not involve fundamentally different cognitive processes. These findings challenge theories that assume direct retrieval bypasses constructive processes. Instead we suggest that both direct and generative retrieval involve construction that is similarly affected by cue concreteness and relevance.     

Does retrieval intentionality really matter? Similarities and differences between involuntary memories and directly and generatively retrieved voluntary memories

Theories of autobiographical memory distinguish between involuntary and voluntary retrieval as a consequence of conscious intention (i.e., wanting to remember). Another distinction can be made between direct and generative retrieval, which reflects the effort involved (i.e., trying to remember). However, it is unclear how intention and effort interacts. For example, involuntary memories and directly retrieved memories have been used interchangeably in the literature to refer to the same phenomenon of effortless, non‐strategic retrieval. More recent theoretical advances suggest that they are separate types of retrieval, one unintentional (involuntary), another intentional and effortless (direct voluntary retrieval), and a third intentional and effortful (generative voluntary retrieval). Whether this also entails differing phenomenological characteristics, such as vividness, rehearsal, or emotional valence, has not been previously investigated. In the current study, participants reported memories in an experimental paradigm designed to elicit voluntary and involuntary memories and rated them on a number of characteristics. If intention affects the retrieval process, then we should expect differences between the characteristics of involuntary and directly retrieved memories. The results imply that retrieval intention seems to differentiate how a memory appears in a person's mind. Furthermore, we argue that these differences in part could result from differences in encoding and consolidation.     

Retrieval effort or intention: Which is more important for participants’ classification of involuntary and voluntary memories?

Theories of autobiographical memory distinguish between involuntary and voluntary memories. While involuntary memories are retrieved with no conscious intention and are therefore unexpected, voluntary memories are both intended and expected. Recent research has shown that participants sometimes classify their memories as either involuntary or voluntary based on retrieval effort instead of intention. These findings question whether intention really is the defining difference between these two types of retrieval or whether retrieval effort is also an important determinant. In two experimental studies, we investigated the extent to which participants rely on retrieval effort while classifying their memories as involuntary or voluntary. We created experimental conditions that maximize the probability of one type of retrieval while minimizing the probability of another type. Participants reported autobiographical memories in each condition while the programme registered their retrieval time. They then classified their memories as either voluntary or involuntary and rated all memories on perceived retrieval effort. This gave us four categories of memories: experimentally defined voluntary and involuntary memories with an objective measure of effort (retrieval time) and subjectively classified involuntary and voluntary memories with a subjective measure of effort. This allowed us to investigate the relative contribution of intention and effort to involuntary and voluntary memories. We replicated and extended previous findings by showing that the majority of memories were classified as involuntary independently of whether they were retrieved in the experimentally defined voluntary or involuntary condition. This could indicate that subjective effort is more important than intention for the involuntary–voluntary distinction in contrast with existing theories. We discuss theoretical and methodological implications of this finding.