4.4 Article

Selective lesion to the entorhinal cortex leads to an impairment in familiarity but not recollection

期刊

BRAIN AND COGNITION
卷 104, 期 -, 页码 82-92

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2016.02.005

关键词

Entorhinal cortex; Familiarity; Recollection; Conceptual priming; Recognition memory

资金

  1. University of Roehampton

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present research explored the effects of selective impairment to the entorhinal cortex on the processes of familiarity and recollection. To achieve this objective, the performance of patient MR, who has a selective impairment of the left entorhinal cortex, was compared to that of age and IQ-matched controls. Four experiments tested participants' recognition memory for familiar and unfamiliar faces and words. In all experiments, participants studied lists of items and then completed an old/new recognition test in which they also made remember/know/guess judgements. A fifth experiment tested participants' priming associated with the familiarity process. MR had intact performance in both face recognition experiments as well as having intact performance in pseudoword recognition. Crucially, however, in the familiar word experiment, whilst MR performed similarly to control participants in terms of recollection, she showed a marked impairment in familiarity. Furthermore, she also demonstrated a reversed conceptual priming effect. MR's impairment is both material-specific and selective for previously encountered but not new verbal items (pseudowords). These findings provide the first clear evidence that selective impairment of the entorhinal cortex impairs the familiarity process for familiar verbal material whilst leaving recollection intact. These results suggest the entorhinal cortex does not have attributes reflective of both recollection and familiarity as previously assumed, but rather supports context-free long-term familiarity-based recognition memory. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据