California Verbal Learning Test: performance by patients with focal frontal and non‐frontal lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although frontal lobe lesions do not cause classic amnesia, they may disrupt learning and memory in a number of ways. To investigate in finer detail the regions of frontal injury that are associated with impaired learning and to define the cognitive processing deficits specific to each region that disrupt memory, we compared 33 patients with focal frontal injury with patients with non-frontal injury and with normal controls on a standard neuropsychological instrument, the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT). Subgroups of patients with distinct lesion site profiles were compared in a number of learning measures. All of the subgroups of patients with frontal lesions (with one exception) had inefficient learning due to poor implementation of a strategy of subjective organization. Despite this organizational deficiency, the performance of patients with frontopolar lesions normalized across trials. Only the subgroups with lesions centred either on the left posterior dorsolateral frontal region or the posterior medial frontal region had overall impaired learning and recall. The left posterior dorsolateral frontal group was most significantly impaired on all measures. This recall impairment was secondary to a mild lexical-semantic deficit. A recognition memory deficit in the same group was due to an abnormal response bias. Several groups had a modest increase in perseverative recalls; the underlying mechanisms differed. Disruption of different cognitive processes associated with specific frontal regions underlies the varied patterns of memory impairment. This study has demonstrated even finer differentiations within the frontal region than previously known.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".