Impaired familiarity with preserved recollection after anterior temporal-lobe resection that spares the hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well established that the medial-temporal lobe (MTL) is critical for recognition memory. The MTL is known to be composed of distinct structures that are organized in a hierarchical manner. At present, it remains controversial whether lower structures in this hierarchy, such as perirhinal cortex, support memory functions that are distinct from those of higher structures, in particular the hippocampus. Perirhinal cortex has been proposed to play a specific role in the assessment of familiarity during recognition, which can be distinguished from the selective contributions of the hippocampus to the recollection of episodic detail. Some researchers have argued, however, that the distinction between familiarity and recollection cannot capture functional specialization within the MTL and have proposed single-process accounts. Evidence supporting the dual-process view comes from demonstrations that selective hippocampal damage can produce isolated recollection impairments. It is unclear, however, whether temporal-lobe lesions that spare the hippocampus can produce selective familiarity impairments. Without this demonstration, single-process accounts cannot be ruled out. We examined recognition memory in NB, an individual who underwent surgical resection of left anterior temporal-lobe structures for treatment of intractable epilepsy. Her resection included a large portion of perirhinal cortex but spared the hippocampus. The results of four experiments based on three different experimental procedures (remember-know paradigm, receiver operating characteristics, and response-deadline procedure) indicate that NB exhibits impaired familiarity with preserved recollection. The present findings thus provide a crucial missing piece of support for functional specialization in the MTL.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".