Ameliorating Episodic Memory Deficits in a Young Adult With Developmental (Congenital) Amnesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although the spacing effect has been investigated extensively in a variety of populations, few studies have focused on individuals with hippocampal amnesia and none, to our knowledge, have investigated differences in performance as a function of spacing schedule in these cases. In the current study, we investigated the benefit of expanding and equal-interval, compared to massed, spacing schedules in a developmental amnesic person, H.C., who shows congenitally based abnormal development of the hippocampal memory system. METHODS: Given the possibility of plasticity and reorganization in the developing brain, we investigated whether H.C. would benefit more from an expanding versus equal-interval schedule using a continuous recognition paradigm, even though this task has been shown to recruit structures within the medial temporal lobe, including the hippocampus. RESULTS: H.C. and matched controls both showed a clear spacing effect, although neither group benefited more from an equal-interval or expanding spacing schedule. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study show that the spacing effect is an effective and clinically meaningful memory intervention technique that may be applied to clinical conditions known to affect hippocampal function and episodic memory early in life. (JINS, 2018, 24, 1003-1012).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".