Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal studies have proven useful in addressing aspects of memory formation and consolidation that cannot be readily answered in research with humans. In particular, they offer the possibility of controlling both the extent and locus of brain lesions, and the exact nature of the experiences to be remembered. Taking advantage of these possibilities, recent studies indicated that the graded retrograde amnesia often seen after lesions to the hippocampal system is not uniform across lesion site and task, nor is it an indication that all of the remembered information available in intact subjects becomes available after hippocampal system lesions made a long time after learning. Rather, these studies support the notion that information is stored in both hippocampal and extrahipocampal sites, and that retrieval from different sites involves access to different kinds of information. The strongest evidence in support of this view is the set of findings indicating that when remote memories are retrieved, in either human or animal subjects that have suffered hippocampal system damage, these memories are not qualitatively the same as remote memories retrieved in intact subjects. In sum, memory appears to be rather more dynamic than most current conceptions allow, such that retrieval events trigger new encodings, and these new encodings engage the hippocampal system once again. As a result, older, reactivated memories become more resistant to disruption, and this mechanism helps to explain why graded retrograde amnesia is sometimes seen after brain damage. The use of new neuroimaging techniques, coupled with more sensitive neuropsychological tests in lesioned subjects, should further illuminate the complex nature of memory in coming years. It is likely that animal studies will continue to prove important in these developments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".