The Role of Relational Binding in Item Memory: Evidence from Face Recognition in a Case of Developmental Amnesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current theories state that the hippocampus is responsible for the formation of memory representations regarding relations, whereas extrahippocampal cortical regions support representations for single items. However, findings of impaired item memory in hippocampal amnesics suggest a more nuanced role for the hippocampus in item memory. The hippocampus may be necessary when the item elements need to be bound within and across episodes to form a lasting representation that can be used flexibly. The current investigation was designed to test this hypothesis in face recognition. H.C., an individual who developed with a compromised hippocampal system, and control participants incidentally studied individual faces that either varied in presentation viewpoint across study repetitions or remained in a fixed viewpoint across the study repetitions. Eye movements were recorded during encoding and participants then completed a surprise recognition memory test. H.C. demonstrated altered face viewing during encoding. Although the overall number of fixations made by H.C. was not significantly different from that of controls, the distribution of her viewing was primarily directed to the eye region. Critically, H.C. was significantly impaired in her ability to subsequently recognize faces studied from variable viewpoints, but demonstrated spared performance in recognizing faces she encoded from a fixed viewpoint, implicating a relationship between eye movement behavior in the service of a hippocampal binding function. These findings suggest that a compromised hippocampal system disrupts the ability to bind item features within and across study repetitions, ultimately disrupting recognition when it requires access to flexible relational representations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".