MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965220175 · doi:10.1080/13554794.2010.532138

Impaired event memory and recollection in a case of developmental amnesia

2011· article· en· W1965220175 on OpenAlexafffund
R. Shayna Rosenbaum, Nicole Carson, N. Abraham, Bailey Bowles, Donna Kwan, Stefan Köhler, Eva Svoboda, Brian Levine, Brian Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurocase · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityBaycrest HospitalUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSemantic memoryEpisodic memoryPsychologyRecallAmnesiaDeclarative memoryCognitive psychologyLong-term memoryNeural substrateRetrospective memoryExplicit memoryAutobiographical memoryReconstructive memoryMemory errorsHippocampusNeuroscienceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A current debate in the literature is whether all declarative memories and associated memory processes rely on the same neural substrate. Here, we show that H.C., a developmental amnesic person with selective bilateral hippocampal volume loss, has a mild deficit in personal episodic memory, and a more pronounced deficit in public event memory; semantic memory for personal and general knowledge was unimpaired. This was accompanied by a subtle difference in impairment between recollection and familiarity on lab-based tests of recognition memory. Strikingly, H.C.'s recognition did not benefit from a levels-of-processing manipulation. Thus, not all types of declarative memory and related processes can exist independently of the hippocampus even if it is damaged early in life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurocaseSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207