Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient and neuroimaging studies report that the ability to remember past personal experiences and the ability to envision future personal experiences are interconnected. Loss of episodic memory is typically accompanied by loss of future imagining, and engaging in either activity recruits common brain areas. The relationship between episodic memory and future imagining is also suggested by their co-emergence in ontogenetic development. However, it is unknown whether a failure of one ability to emerge in early development precludes the development of the other ability. To investigate this possibility, we tested H.C., a young woman with amnesia of developmental origin associated with bilateral hippocampal loss, and demographically matched controls on an adapted version of the Autobiographical Interview using Galton-Crovitz cueing. In response to cue words, participants described both past personal events and imagined future personal events that occurred, or could occur, in near and distant time periods. Results indicated a parallel pattern of impairment for both past and future event generation in H.C., such that her narratives of both types of events were similarly deficient. These results indicate that mental time travel can be compromised in hippocampal amnesia, whether acquired in early or later life, possibly as a result of a deficit in reassembling and binding together details of stored information from earlier episodes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".