Cited by 35Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchMemory Processes and InfluencesIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

Pre-Stressor Interference Control and Intrusive Memories

Open access
Verwoerd, Johan, Wessel, Ineke, de Jong, Peter J., Nieuwenhuis, Maurice M. W., Huntjens, Rafaele J. C.·2011·Cognitive Therapy and Research

Abstract

Although intrusive imagery is a common response in the aftermath of a stressful or traumatic event, only a minority of trauma victims show persistent re-experiencing and related psychopathology. Individual differences in pre-trauma executive control possibly play a critical role. Therefore, this study investigated whether a relatively poor pre-stressor ability to resist proactive interference in working memory might increase risk for experiencing undesirable intrusive memories after being exposed to a stressful event. Non-clinical participants (N = 85) completed a modified version of a widely used test of interference control in working memory (CVLT; Kramer and Delis 1991) and subsequently watched an emotional film fragment. Following presentation of the fragment, intrusive memories were recorded in a 1-week diary and at a follow up session 7 days later. A relatively poor ability to resist proactive interference was related to a relatively high frequency of film-related intrusive memories. This relationship was independent of neuroticism and gender. These findings are consistent with the idea that a pre-morbid deficit in the ability to resist proactive interference reflects a vulnerability factor for experiencing intrusive memories after trauma exposure.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10608-010-9335-x

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Verwoerd, J., Wessel, I., de Jong, P. J., Nieuwenhuis, M. M. W., & Huntjens, R. J. C.
Affiliations
University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Verwoerd, Johan
Venue
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Published
2010-10-19
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
161-170
ISSN
  • 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2819
OpenAlex
W2157510218
Cited by
35
References
45
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Cognitive Therapy and Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (451-05-018)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
Keywords
intrusive memories, proactive interference, executive function, working memory, trauma exposure, re-experiencing, vulnerability factors, neuroticism, gender differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review