MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093545353 · doi:10.1002/hipo.22093

Hippocampal lesions produce both nongraded and temporally graded retrograde amnesia in the same rat

2013· article· en· W2093545353 on OpenAlexafffund
Gordon Winocur, Melanie J. Sekeres, Malcolm A. Binns, Morris Moscovitch

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenTrent UniversityBaycrest HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchTrent University
KeywordsHippocampal formationRetrograde amnesiaAmnesiaNeurosciencePsychologyLesionHippocampusAnterograde amnesiaMemory consolidationMemory disorderRecallCognitive psychologyCognitive disorderCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rats were administered contextual fear conditioning and trained on a water-maze, spatial memory task 28 days or 24 h before undergoing hippocampal lesion or control surgery. When tested postoperatively on both tasks, rats with hippocampal lesions exhibited retrograde amnesia for spatial memory at both delays but temporally graded retrograde amnesia for the contextual fear response. In demonstrating both types of retrograde amnesia in the same animals, the results parallel similar observations in human amnesics with hippocampal damage and provide compelling evidence that the nature of the task and the type of information being accessed are crucial factors in determining the pattern of retrograde memory loss associated with hippocampal damage. The results are interpreted as consistent with our transformation hypothesis (Winocur et al. (2010a) Neuropsychologia 48:2339-2356; Winocur and Moscovitch (2011) J Int Neuropsychol Soc 17:766-780) and at variance with standard consolidation theory and other theoretical models of memory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations50
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207