Dissociations in perceptual discrimination following selective damage to the dentate gyrus versus CA1 subfield of the hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hippocampus (HPC) is well-known for its involvement in declarative (consciously accessible) memory, but there is evidence that it may also play a role in complex perceptual discrimination. Separate research has demonstrated separable contributions of HPC subregions to component memory processes, with the dentate gyrus (DG) required for mnemonic discrimination of similar inputs and the CA1 subfield required for retention and retrieval, but contributions of these subregions to perceptual processes is understudied. The current study examined the nature and extent of a double dissociation between the dentate gyrus (DG) to discrimination processes and CA1 subfield to retention/retrieval by testing two unique individuals with bilateral damage to the DG (case BL) and CA1 (case BR). We tested BL and BR on a wide range of standardized neuropsychological tests to assess information encoding and retention/retrieval and co-opted many measures to assess perceptual discrimination. Compared to normative data, BL exhibited performance below expectations on most measures requiring perceptual discrimination and on measures of encoding but demonstrated intact retention. Conversely, BR showed no difficulties with perceptual discrimination or verbal encoding but exhibited poor verbal retention, as well as poor encoding and retention of spatial/integrative tasks (e.g., object in a location). These results indicate that, despite its prominent role in memory, the DG is necessary for perceptual discrimination and encoding, whereas CA1 is necessary for retention/retrieval and encoding of spatial information. The pattern of results highlights the critical nature of individual case studies in the nuanced understanding of HPC subfield contributions to different memory processes, as well as the utility of repurposing neuropsychological measures to capture individual differences.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".