MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Memory Deficits Characterized by Patterns of Lesions to the Hippocampus and Parahippocampal Cortex

2000· article· en· W2048605353 on OpenAlexafffund
Véronique D. Bohbot, John J. B. Allen, Lynn Nadel

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGrantová Agentura České RepublikyJames S. McDonnell Foundation
KeywordsHippocampusNeuroscienceParahippocampal gyrusCortex (anatomy)LesionPsychologyTemporal lobeEntorhinal cortexMedicineEpilepsyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial and nonspatial memory tests were given to patients with small thermal lesions administered to the medial temporal lobes in an attempt at alleviating pharmacologically resistant epilepsy. In all three spatial memory experiments presented in this paper, patients with lesions that included the right parahippocampal cortex were seriously impaired. Their impairment, together with the performance of patients with lesions to the right hippocampus (sparing the right parahippocampal cortex), provides the different patterns of deficits that lead to different interpretations of the function of the parahippocampal cortex. The distinction between the effects of functional damage in hippocampus and the effects of a lesion to the hippocampus or to regions surrounding the hippocampus, such as the parahippocampal cortex, is emphasized. We conclude that the right parahippocampal cortex participates in spatial memory beyond serving as a gateway to the hippocampus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations139
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207