Faculty Opinions recommendation of Network-wide abnormalities explain memory variability in hippocampal amnesia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with hippocampal amnesia play a central role in memory neuroscience but the neural underpinnings of amnesia are hotly debated. We hypothesized that focal hippocampal damage is associated with changes across the extended hippocampal system and that these, rather than hippocampal atrophy per se, would explain variability in memory between patients. We assessed this hypothesis in a uniquely large cohort of patients (n = 38) after autoimmune limbic encephalitis, a syndrome associated with focal structural hippocampal pathology. These patients showed impaired recall, recognition and maintenance of new information, and remote autobiographical amnesia. Besides hippocampal atrophy, we observed correlatively reduced thalamic and entorhinal cortical volume, resting-state inter-hippocampal connectivity and activity in posteromedial cortex. Associations of hippocampal volume with recall, recognition, and remote memory were fully mediated by wider network abnormalities, and were only direct in forgetting. Network abnormalities may explain the variability across studies of amnesia and speak to debates in memory neuroscience.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".