Loss of recent memory after bilateral hippocampal lesions: memory and memories—looking back and looking forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
![Graphic][1] In 1957, Scoville and Milner reported a series of case studies describing the nature of the memory defect they observed following bilateral surgical removals from the medial temporal region. The paper highlighted that extensive bilateral surgical excisions from the hippocampus and hippocampal gyrus resulted in severe and lasting memory loss; it also focused attention on these brain structures as critical for the maintenance of normal memory function. These findings ran counter to prevailing views at the time by linking a memory disturbance to damage to a specific part of the brain, and highlighted the fact that the hippocampal region was essential in the establishment of new and enduring memories. Milner had been invited to study this series of patients by the neurosurgeon, William Scoville, following a report by Milner and Penfield1 of two patients who showed unexpected memory loss following unilateral left-temporal lobe brain operations performed at the Montreal Neurological Hospital. … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".