Source versus content memory in patients with a unilateral frontal cortex or a temporal lobe excision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been suggested previously that patients with a frontal lobe lesion might have a specific impairment in the retrieval of the source of information despite adequate memory for facts. Patients with an anterior temporal excision are known to have impairments in memory for facts and the question arises as to whether they are also impaired in source memory. The present study compared memory for facts and their source in patients with a unilateral frontal cortical or an anterior temporal excision in a situation in which both types of information were encoded explicitly. Patients with a unilateral frontal cortex or a temporal lobe excision watched videos of a game show and were instructed to attend to both the trivia facts and their source (the identity of the speaker or the relative time of presentation). Patients with a frontal cortex excision were not impaired on either fact or source memory. This was true even when a subgroup of patients with an excision involving the dorsolateral frontal cortex was examined. In contrast, patients with a left temporal lobe excision were impaired in both fact and identity source memory and right temporal lobe patients were impaired in identity source memory. All patients performed similarly to normal controls in temporal source memory. The present results are consistent with the view that source information is part of an associative network of information about an episode and that the medial temporal region is critical for both source and content memory. Furthermore, if source information is encoded explicitly, the frontal cortex does not appear to be necessary for its retrieval. Instead, it is proposed that the frontal cortex plays a metacognitive role in memory retrieval.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".