Meeting of the Academy of Aphasia Montreal, 2000 Brain and Language, 74 (3) Lost for words or loss of memories: Autobiographical memory in semantic dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A striking pattern of preservation of recent relative to remote autobiographical memories has been reported for patients with semantic dementia (Graham & Hodges, 1997; Snowden, Griffiths & Neary, 1996). This is the reverse of the classic “Ribot effect ” found in patients with amnesia following damage to the hippocampal complex. Graham and Hodges (1997) suggest that the profile for semantic dementia patients is, in fact, a steplike function rather than a gradient, with preserved memories for a period of about 1.5 years, and essentially equal impairment for all earlier memories. The apparent double dissociation between semantic dementia and amnesic patients is consistent with the “standard ” model of memory, in which the hippocampal complex plays a time-limited role in the acquisition and storage of memories, while long-term storage involves regions of the temporal neocortex (e.g. Squire, 1992). Within this framework, the relatively intact hippocampal structures of semantic dementia patients support good memory for recent events, while the loss of more remote memories can be attributed to atrophy of the temporal neocortex. The semantic dementia results provide a challenge to alternative accounts that do not include a time-limited role for the
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.196 | 0.074 |
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".