Is overgeneral autobiographical memory an isolated memory phenomenon in major depression?

The present study explored the relation between overgeneral autobiographical memory (AM) and other aspects of memory functioning in depression. A total of 26 patients with major depressive disorder completed a set of memory tasks measuring AM specificity (AMT; Williams & Broadbent, 1986), working memory, semantic memory, verbal learning, delayed verbal recall, recognition memory, and source memory. Reduced specificity of AM was related to poor working memory (central executive functioning) and poor source memory. The former finding conforms to the idea that the voluntary retrieval of specific autobiographical memories (AMs) involves central executive processes (e.g., Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000). The latter finding replicates and extends recent findings suggesting that overgeneral AM is part of a broader memory deficit in retrieving the specific details of the context in which information was acquired (Ramponi, Barnard, & Nimmo-Smith, 2004). Furthermore, in line with Ramponi et al. (2004), rumination was found to be related to both overgeneral AM and poor source memory.     

Effects of the timing and identity of retrieval cues in individual recall: an attempt to mimic cross-cueing in collaborative recall

Inhibitory effects in collaborative recall have been attributed to cross-cueing among partners, in the same way that part-set cues are known to impair recall in individuals. However, studies of part-set cueing in individuals typically involve presenting cues visually at the start of recall, whereas cross-cueing in collaboration is likely to be spoken and distributed over time. In an attempt to bridge this gap, three experiments investigated effects of presenting spoken part-set or extra-list cues at different times during individual recall. Cues had an inhibitory effect on recollection in the early part of the recall period, especially when presented in immediate succession at the start of recall. There was no difference between the effects of part-set and extra-list cues under these presentation conditions. However, more inhibition was generated by part-set than extra-list cues when cue presentation was distributed throughout recall. These results are interpreted as suggesting that cues presented during recall disrupt memory in two ways, corresponding to either blocking or modifying retrieval processes. Implications for explaining and possibly ameliorating inhibitory effects in collaborative recall are discussed.