MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158984613 · doi:10.1002/hipo.20397

Understanding medial temporal activation in memory tasks: Evidence from fMRI of encoding and recognition in a case of transient global amnesia

2007· article· en· W2158984613 on OpenAlexaff
Robyn Westmacott, Frank L. Silver, Mary Pat McAndrews

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecognition memoryTransient global amnesiaHippocampal formationPsychologyNeuroscienceEncoding (memory)Temporal lobeRecallEpisodic memoryAmnesiaNeuroimagingAudiologyCognitive psychologyCognitionMedicineEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used fMRI to examine the activation patterns of patient AE during encoding and recognition of visual scenes during an episode of transient global amnesia (TGA) and 3 months later. Controls (n = 5) showed bilateral (R > L) activation in parahippocampal and fusiform gyri during encoding and right-sided activation in the same regions associated with recognition of previously viewed scenes. AE showed a similar pattern at follow-up. During acute TGA, when performance was profoundly impaired, AE showed no medial temporal activation associated with encoding of new scenes or recognition of old scenes. In both contrasts, the percent signal change in relevant medial temporal regions was more than three standard deviations below the control sample mean. She did, however, show striking bilateral hippocampal activation for recognition attempts (old + new scenes > baseline) even though retrieval was unsuccessful (55% recognition accuracy). This finding was unique to AE on this occasion. This is the first study to document normalization of both encoding and recognition activation patterns in TGA. Furthermore, the strong hippocampal activation during unsuccessful retrieval highlights important issues in interpreting memory-related activations, particularly in dysfunctional systems.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.111 · 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

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207