Patterns of preserved and impaired spatial memory in a case of developmental amnesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hippocampus is believed to have evolved to support allocentric spatial representations of environments as well as the details of personal episodes that occur within them, whereas other brain structures are believed to support complementary egocentric spatial representations. Studies of patients with adult-onset lesions lend support to these distinctions for newly encountered places but suggest that with time and/or experience, schematic aspects of environments can exist independent of the hippocampus. Less clear is the quality of spatial memories acquired in individuals with impaired episodic memory in the context of a hippocampal system that did not develop normally. Here we describe a detailed investigation of the integrity of spatial representations of environments navigated repeatedly over many years in the rare case of H.C., a person with congenital absence of the mammillary bodies and abnormal hippocampal and fornix development. H.C. and controls who had extensive experience navigating the residential and downtown areas known to H.C. were tested on mental navigation tasks that assess the identity, location, and spatial relations among landmarks, and the ability to represent routes. H.C. was able to represent distances and directions between familiar landmarks and provide accurate, though inefficient, route descriptions. However, difficulties producing detailed spatial features on maps and accurately ordering more than two landmarks that are in close proximity to one another along a route suggest a spatial representation that includes only coarse, schematic information that lacks coherence and that cannot be used flexibly. This pattern of performance is considered in the context of other areas of preservation and impairment exhibited by H.C. and suggests that the allocentric-egocentric dichotomy with respect to hippocampal and extended hippocampal system function may need to be reconsidered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".