Two Routes to Losing One’s Past Life: A Brain Trauma, an Emotional Trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organic and psychogenic retrograde amnesia have long been considered as distinct entities and as such, studied separately. However, patterns of neuropsychological impairments in organic and psychogenic amnesia can bear interesting resemblances despite different aetiologies. In this paper, two cases with profound, selective and permanent retrograde amnesia are presented, one of an apparent organic origin and the other with an apparent psychogenic cause. The first case, DD, lost his memory after focal brain injury from a nail gun to the right temporal lobe. The second case, AC, lost her memory in the context of intense psychological suffering. In both cases, pre-morbid autobiographical memory for people, places and events was lost, and no feeling of familiarity was experienced during relearning. In addition, they both lost some semantic knowledge acquired prior to the onset of the amnesia. This contrasts with the preservation of complex motor skills without any awareness of having learned them. Both DD and AC showed mild deficits on memory tests but neither presented any anterograde amnesia. The paradox of these cases–opposite causes yet similar clinical profile–exemplifies the hypothesis that organic and psychogenic amnesia may be two expressions of the same faulty mechanism in the neural circuitry.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".