Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Feb 5;7(2):e2355958. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.55958.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
重度抑郁症（MDD）与自传体记忆（AM）回忆缺陷有关，据认为这些缺陷源于努力回忆的中断。了解当回忆受到更直接的刺激时，例如气味线索，这些缺陷是否会减轻，可以为 MDD 的治疗干预提供信息。
评估在使用气味线索而不是单词线索来提示记忆时，MDD 中特定 AM 回忆的缺陷是否减轻。
设计、设置和参与者：本横断面研究采用重复测量设计，评估了对气味线索和单词线索（随机、平衡顺序）的特定 AM 回忆。数据收集于 2021 年 9 月至 2022 年 11 月之间进行。该研究在宾夕法尼亚州匹兹堡大学医学院进行，参与者为根据 Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview 诊断为 MDD 的成年人。数据于 2023 年 1 月至 6 月进行分析。
主要结果衡量标准是对气味线索记忆的特定 AM 回忆百分比与对单词线索记忆的百分比。其他结果衡量标准包括对气味线索记忆与单词线索记忆的唤醒、生动度、重复和回忆反应时间的评分。
32 名成年人（平均[标准差]年龄 30.0[10.1]岁；26[81.3%]女性；6[18.8%]男性）完成了该研究。参与者对气味线索的特定 AM 回忆多于单词线索（平均[标准差]，68.4%[20.4%]与 52.1%[23.3%]；Cohen d，0.78；P < .001）。此外，气味线索的回忆被评为更具唤醒性（平均[标准差]，3.0[0.8]与 2.6[0.7]；Cohen d，1.28；P < .001）和更生动（平均[标准差]，3.3[0.7]与 3.0[0.7]；Cohen d，0.67；P < .001），并且比单词线索回忆更慢（平均[标准差]，14.5[3.6]与 8.9[3.4]秒；Cohen d，1.18；P < .001）。与健康对照组（80%）中单词线索的人群平均值相比，参与者对单词线索的特定记忆较少（Cohen d，1.18；P < .001），支持过度概括的存在。值得注意的是，对气味线索的特定记忆回忆的百分比与健康对照组人群平均值没有差异（Cohen d，0.26；P = .15）。
在这项横断面研究中，与单词线索相比，MDD 患者对气味线索的特定 AM 回忆更多。这项研究表明，只有在使用口头线索时才会出现 AM 缺陷，并为增加 MDD 患者的特定 AM 回忆提供了一种潜在的新方法。
Zotero 插件