Semantic and episodic memory in children with temporal lobe epilepsy: Do they relate to literacy skills?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Children with temporal lobe epilepsy are at risk for deficits in new learning (episodic memory) and literacy skills. Semantic memory deficits and double dissociations between episodic and semantic memory have recently been found in this patient population. In the current study we investigate whether impairments of these 2 distinct memory systems relate to literacy skills. METHOD: 57 children with unilateral temporal lobe epilepsy completed tests of verbal memory (episodic and semantic) and literacy skills (reading and spelling accuracy, and reading comprehension). RESULTS: For the entire group, semantic memory explained over 30% of variance in each of the literacy domains. Episodic memory explained a significant, but rather small proportion (< 10%) of variance in reading and spelling accuracy, but not in reading comprehension. Moreover, when children with opposite patterns of specific memory impairments (intact semantic/impaired episodic, intact episodic/impaired semantic) were compared, significant reductions in literacy skills were evident only in children with semantic memory impairments, but not in children with episodic memory impairments relative to the norms and to children with temporal lobe epilepsy who had intact memory. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides the first evidence for differential relations between episodic and semantic memory impairments and literacy skills in children with temporal lobe epilepsy. As such, it highlights the urgent need to consider semantic memory deficits in management of children with temporal lobe epilepsy and undertake further research into the nature of reading difficulties of children with semantic memory impairments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".