Autobiographical memory of the recent past following frontal cortex or temporal lobe excisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has raised questions regarding the necessity of the frontal cortex in autobiographical memory and the role that it plays in actively retrieving contextual information associated with personally relevant events. Autobiographical memory was studied in patients with unilateral excisions restricted to the frontal cortex or temporal lobe involving the amygdalo-hippocampal region and in normal controls using an event-sampling method. We examined accuracy of free recall, use of strategies during retrieval and memory for specific aspects of the autobiographical events, including temporal order. Patients with temporal lobe excisions were impaired in autobiographical recall. By contrast, patients with frontal cortical excisions exhibited normal autobiographical recall but were less likely to use temporal order spontaneously to organize event retrieval. Instruction to organize retrieval by temporal order failed to improve recall in temporal lobe patients and increased the incidence of plausible intrusion errors in left temporal patients. In contrast, patients with frontal cortical excisions now surpassed control subjects in recall of autobiographical events. Furthermore, the retrieval accuracy for the temporal order of diary events was not impaired in these patients. In a subsequent cued recall test, temporal lobe patients were impaired in their memory for the details of the diary events and their context. In conclusion, a basic impairment in autobiographical memory (including memory for temporal context) results from damage to the temporal lobe and not the frontal cortex. Patients with frontal excisions fail to use organizational strategies spontaneously to aid retrieval but can use these effectively if instructed to do so.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".