Hippocampal contributions to recollection in retrograde and anterograde amnesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lesions restricted to the hippocampal formation and/or extended hippocampal system (hippocampal formation, fornix, mammillary bodies, and anterior thalamic nuclei) can disrupt conscious recollection in anterograde amnesia, while leaving familiarity-based memory relatively intact. Familiarity may be supported by extra-hippocampal medial temporal lobe (MTL) structures. Within-task dissociations in recognition memory best exemplify this distinction in anterograde amnesia. The authors report for the first time comparable dissociations within recognition memory in retrograde amnesia. An amnesic patient (A.D.) with bilateral fornix and septal nuclei lesions failed to recognize details pertaining to personal past events only when recollection was required, during recognition of episodic details. His intact recognition of generic and semantic details pertaining to the same events was ascribed to intact familiarity processes. Recollective processes in the controls were reflected by asymmetrical Receiver's Operating Characteristic curves, whereas the patient's Receiver's Operating Characteristic was symmetrical, suggesting that his inferior recognition performance on episodic details was reliant on familiarity processes. Anterograde and retrograde memories were equally affected, with no temporal gradient for retrograde memories. By comparison, another amnesic person (K.C.) with extensive MTL damage (involving extra-hippocampal MTL structures in addition to hippocampal and fornix lesions) had very poor recognition and no recollection of either episodic or generic/semantic details. These data suggest that the extended hippocampal system is required to support recollection for both anterograde and retrograde memories, regardless of their age.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".