Ehhh that's still misleading. It makes it sound like when the officer testifies about your statements, it goes through a magical filter in which only the inculpatory(is that the word?) stuff can come in, but not the exculpatory. Like...

During Mirandized interrogation:

Doe: "I grabbed her wrists after she picked up a knife to attack me."

In court:

Prosecutor: "What, if anything, did you learn from questioning Mr. Doe?"

Officer: "He said he grabbed her wrists."

Defense attorney on cross-examination: "In what context did Mr. Doe grab her wrists?"

Officer: "After she picked up a kni--"

Prosecutor: "Objection! Hearsay!"

Judge: "Sustained. Jury will disregard anything about the accuser picking up a knife. Wrist grabbing stuff is fine."

^Not remotely how it works, at all, but what you might falsely believe from being told "your words are admissible against you, not for you".