MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114518523 · doi:10.1037/a0023770

One declarative memory system or two? The relationship between episodic and semantic memory in children with temporal lobe epilepsy.

2011· article· en· W2114518523 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Lou Smith, Sunčica Lah

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySemantic memoryEpisodic memoryTemporal lobeCognitive psychologyRecallRetrospective memoryDissociation (chemistry)Reconstructive memoryExplicit memoryChildhood memoryLateralityEpilepsyCognitionDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study explored verbal semantic and episodic memory in children with unilateral temporal lobe epilepsy to determine whether they had impairments in both or only 1 aspect of memory, and to examine relations between performance in the 2 domains. METHOD: Sixty-six children and adolescents (37 with seizures of left temporal lobe onset, 29 with right-sided onset) were given 4 tasks assessing different aspects of semantic memory (picture naming, fluency, knowledge of facts, knowledge of word meanings) and 2 episodic memory tasks (story recall, word list recall). RESULTS: High rates of impairments were observed across tasks, and no differences were found related to the laterality of the seizures. Individual patient analyses showed that there was a double dissociation between the 2 aspects of memory in that some children were impaired on episodic but not semantic memory, whereas others showed intact episodic but impaired semantic memory. CONCLUSIONS: This double dissociation suggests that these 2 memory systems may develop independently in the context of temporal lobe pathology, perhaps related to differential effects of dysfunction in the lateral and mesial temporal lobe structures.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations44
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologySame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207