Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout history, memory and amnesia have been central to philosophical thought and empirical investigation. There has been particular interest in whether there are multiple forms of memory, how they are represented in the brain, how they are parsed following neurological compromise, and how their breakdown is best characterized. Differential abilities among amnestic individuals have advanced the distinction between various forms of memory, such as implicit and explicit memory in the case of H.M., and episodic and semantic memory in the case of K.C. This overview brings together a variety of perspectives on memory and the amnesias, from Clinical Neuropsychology, Neurology, and Cognitive Science, to Animal and Human Neuroscience. We begin with a brief history of the study of memory organization in the healthy brain and dissociations in memory as uncovered in extensively studied cases of amnesia. Memory impairment resulting from damage to the medial temporal lobe (MTL), diencephalon, basal forebrain, and the frontal lobes is then elaborated, with a focus on MTL amnesia, which has received the most attention among memory researchers. Alternative theories of MTL amnesia are considered through a selective review of the current amnesia and neuroimaging literatures on the seemingly disparate roles of the hippocampus in episodic and spatial memory, future imagining, perception, implicit memory, and working memory. If amnesia is a disorder that is not restricted to explicit (consciously accessible) memory, this will force us to rethink the way in which memory is represented in the human brain. WIREs Cogn Sci 2012, 3:47-63. doi: 10.1002/wcs.155 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".