MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107514327 · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.05.014

Intact Memory for Irrelevant Information Impairs Perception in Amnesia

2012· article· en· W2107514327 on OpenAlexafffund
Morgan D. Barense, Iris I. A. Groen, Andy Lee, Lok‐Kin Yeung, Sinead M. Brady, Mariella Gregori, Narinder Kapur, Timothy J. Bussey, Lisa M. Saksida, Richard N. Henson

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuron · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoWellcome Trust
KeywordsPerirhinal cortexAmnesiaPsychologyInterference theoryPerceptionTemporal lobeNeuroscienceHippocampusCognitive psychologyAnterograde amnesiaRecognition memoryCognitionWorking memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memory and perception have long been considered separate cognitive processes, and amnesia resulting from medial temporal lobe (MTL) damage is thought to reflect damage to a dedicated memory system. Recent work has questioned these views, suggesting that amnesia can result from impoverished perceptual representations in the MTL, causing an increased susceptibility to interference. Using a perceptual matching task for which fMRI implicated a specific MTL structure, the perirhinal cortex, we show that amnesics with MTL damage including the perirhinal cortex, but not those with damage limited to the hippocampus, were vulnerable to object-based perceptual interference. Importantly, when we controlled such interference, their performance recovered to normal levels. These findings challenge prevailing conceptions of amnesia, suggesting that effects of damage to specific MTL regions are better understood not in terms of damage to a dedicated declarative memory system, but in terms of impoverished representations of the stimuli those regions maintain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations150
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuronSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207