4.5 Article

Impairments in precision, rather than spatial strategy, characterize performance on the virtual Morris Water Maze: A case study

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 80, 期 -, 页码 90-101

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.11.013

关键词

Memory; Spatial memory; Allocentric cognitive map; MTL lesion; Hippocampus; Morris Water Maze

资金

  1. Emil Barth Award
  2. NIH/NINDS [NS093052, NS076856]
  3. NIH/NIMS [MH59352, MH083734]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Damage to the medial temporal lobes produces profound amnesia, greatly impairing the ability of patients to learn about new associations and events. While studies in rodents suggest a strong link between damage to the hippocampus and the ability to navigate using distal landmarks in a spatial environment, the connection between navigation and memory in humans remains less clear. Past studies on human navigation have provided mixed findings about whether patients with damage to the medial temporal lobes can successfully acquire and navigate new spatial environments, possibly due, in part, to issues related to patient demographics and characterization of medial temporal lobe damage. Here, we report findings from a young, high functioning patient who suffered severe medial temporal lobe damage. Although the patient is densely amnestic, her ability to acquire and utilize new, but coarse, spatial maps appears largely intact. Specifically, a novel computational analysis focused on the precision of her spatial search revealed a significant deficit in spatial precision rather than spatial search strategy. These findings argue that an intact hippocampus in humans is not necessary for representing multiple external landmarks during spatial navigation of new environments. We suggest instead that the human hippo campus may store and represent complex high-resolution bindings of features in the environment as part of a larger role in perception, memory, and navigation. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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