If

the participant failed to remember/imagine an event after 3 prompts were provided, it received a score of 0. Degree of re-/pre-experiencing the event and degree of travelling in time was rated by the participants on a scale of 1 to 7 for each event description, respectively. Results concerning group differences in the qualities of autobiographical remembering/future Crizotinib mouse thinking (i.e., in the number of internal and external details, and the ratio of internal-to-total details) will be reported first. Then, group differences in autobiographical fluency will be examined. Finally, results regarding group differences in the phenomenological characteristics will be reported. The key findings are illustrated by Figures 1 and 2. A 2 (Group: TBI vs. controls) × 2 (Details: internal vs. external) × 2 (Temporal Direction) mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Group as a between-subject factor, and Details and Temporal Direction

as within-subjects factors, was conducted on the mean number of details produced by TBI patients and controls (see Figure 1). Results showed a main effect of group that bordered significance F(1, 16) = 4.451, p = .051, indicating that overall, patients generally produced fewer details (M = 8.87; SD = 4.24), than controls (M = 13.75; SD = 5.49). The main effect of Details, F(1, 16) = 50.954, η2p = .76, buy Small molecule library p < .0001 was significant, indicating that overall, participants produced more internal (M = 15.77; SD = 9.01) than external details (M = 6.85; SD = 4.09). The interaction between Group and Details was significant, F(1, 16) = 32.324, η2p = .67, p < .0001, showing that controls produced medchemexpress more internal details (M = 21.76; SD = 8.30) than TBI patients (M = 9.78; SD = 4.77), t(16) = −3.76, p < .01, whereas patients (M = 7.96; SD =  4.41) and controls (M = 5.74; SD = 3.65) produced an equivalent number of external details, t(16) = 1.16, p = .26. The main effect of Temporal Direction was significant,

F(1, 16) = 21.155, η2p = .57, p < .0001, participants produced more details for past events (M = 14.40; SD = 7.92) than for future events (M = 8.22; SD = 3.65). Finally, the interaction between Details and Temporal Direction was also significant F(1, 16) = 19.941, η2p = .56, p < .0001, indicating that more internal details were produced for past (M = 21.65; SD = 13.61) than for future events (M = 9.89; SD = 6.02), t(17) = 4.58, p < .0001, whereas no difference was found between the number of external details produced for past (M = 7.15; SD = 4.99) and future events (M = 6.56; SD = 3.79), t(17) = 0.74, p = .47. To examine the relationship between memory and future thinking narrative performance, correlations between internal and external details for past and future events were computed across all participants. In line with previous findings reported by Addis et al.