Shared processes resolve competition within and between episodic and semantic memory: Evidence from patients with LIFG lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Semantic cognition is supported by two interactive components: semantic representations and mechanisms that regulate retrieval (cf. 'semantic control'). Neuropsychological studies have revealed a clear dissociation between semantic and episodic memory. This study explores if the same dissociation holds for control processes that act on episodic and semantic memory, or whether both types of long-term memory are supported by the same executive mechanisms. We addressed this question in a case-series of semantic aphasic patients who had difficulty retrieving both verbal and non-verbal conceptual information in an appropriate fashion following infarcts to left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG). We observed parallel deficits in semantic and episodic memory: (i) the patients' difficulties extended beyond verbal materials to include picture tasks in both domains; (ii) both types of retrieval benefitted from cues designed to reduce the need for internal constraint; (iii) there was little impairment of both semantic and episodic tasks when control demands were minimised; (iv) there were similar effects of distractors across tasks. Episodic retrieval was highly susceptible to false memories elicited by semantically-related distractors, and confidence was inappropriately high in these circumstances. Semantic judgements were also prone to contamination from recent events. These findings demonstrate that patients with deregulated semantic cognition have comparable deficits in episodic retrieval. The results are consistent with a role for LIFG in resolving competition within both episodic and semantic memory, and also in biasing cognition towards task-relevant memory stores when episodic and semantic representations do not promote the same response.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".