Dissociations in future thinking following hippocampal damage: Evidence from discounting and time perspective in episodic amnesia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recollecting past experiences and imagining future experiences activate a common set of brain regions that includes the hippocampus (Schacter, Addis, & Buckner, 2007), and both functions are impaired in people with compromised hippocampal function (Klein, Loftus, & Kihlstrom, 2002; Tulving, 1985). These findings indicate a role for the hippocampus that extends beyond declarative memory. However, a case study revealed that a person with extensive medial temporal lobe (MTL) damage and episodic amnesia was able to forgo smaller, immediate rewards for a larger future payoff to a degree similar to control participants (Kwan et al., 2012). This finding suggests that typical regard for the future does not depend on hippocampal integrity. To test this hypothesis, the current study examined the nature and limits of the role of the hippocampus in future thinking and decision making in amnesic individuals with hippocampal damage and associated impairments in episodic memory and future imagining. The amnesic individuals were administered a delay discounting task to assess valuation of future rewards, a probability discounting task to assess risk taking, and the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory to assess personal orientation toward the past, present, and future. Comparisons with demographically matched controls indicated that aspects of temporal thought and future-oriented decision making are preserved in individuals with hippocampal amnesia despite their inability to imagine themselves in detailed future events. Thus, even extensive MTL damage and the resulting episodic amnesia do not preclude prudent decision making, including consideration of future financial outcomes and personal identification with the past and future.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".