Autobiographical Memory and Patterns of Brain Atrophy in Fronto-temporal Lobar Degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autobiographical memory paradigms have been increasingly used to study the behavioral and neuroanatomical correlates of human remote memory. Although there are numerous functional neuroimaging studies on this topic, relatively few studies of patient samples exist, with heterogeneity of results owing to methodological variability. In this study, fronto-temporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), a form of dementia affecting regions crucial to autobiographical memory, was used as a model of autobiographical memory loss. We emphasized the separation of episodic (recollection of specific event, perceptual, and mental state information) from semantic (factual information unspecific in time and place) autobiographical memory, derived from a reliable method for scoring transcribed autobiographical protocols, the Autobiographical Interview [Levine, B., Svoboda, E., Hay, J., Winocur, G., & Moscovitch, M. Aging and autobiographical memory: Dissociating episodic from semantic retrieval. Psychology and Aging, 17, 677-689, 2002]. Patients with the fronto-temporal dementia (FTD) and mixed fronto-temporal and semantic dementia (FTD/SD) variants of FTLD were impaired at reconstructing episodically rich autobiographical memories across the lifespan, with FTD/SD patients generating an excess of generic semantic autobiographical information. Patients with progressive nonfluent aphasia were mildly impaired for episodic autobiographical memory, but this impairment was eliminated with the provision of structured cueing, likely reflecting relatively intact medial-temporal lobe function, whereas the same cueing failed to bolster the FTD and FTD/SD patients' performance relative to that of matched comparison subjects. The pattern of episodic, but not semantic, autobiographical impairment was enhanced with disease progression on 1- to 2-year follow-up testing in a subset of patients, supplementing the cross-sectional evidence for specificity of episodic autobiographical impairment with longitudinal data. This behavioral pattern covaried with volume loss in a distributed left-lateralized posterior network centered on the temporal lobe, consistent with evidence from other patient and functional neuroimaging studies of autobiographical memory. Frontal lobe volumes, however, did not significantly contribute to this network, suggesting that frontal contributions to autobiographical episodic memory may be more complex than previously appreciated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".