4.5 Article

Conditional discrimination and reversal in amnesia subsequent to hypoxic brain injury or anterior communicating artery aneurysm rupture

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 44, 期 1, 页码 130-139

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.03.026

关键词

amnesia; hypoxia; hippocampus; basal forebrain; memory; attention

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R03MH058208, R01MH065406] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH065406, R03 MH058208-01, R01 MH065406-01A1] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human anterograde amnesia can develop following bilateral damage to the hippocampus and medial temporal lobes, as in hypoxic brain injury, or following damage to the basal forebrain, as following anterior communicating artery (ACoA) aneurysm rupture. In both cases, the mnestic deficit may be similar when assessed by standard neuropsychological measures. However, animal and computational models suggest that there are qualitative differences in the pattern of impaired and spared memory abilities following damage to hippocampus versus basal forebrain. Here, we show such a dissociation in human amnesia using a single two-stage task, involving conditional discrimination and reversal. Consistent with a prior study, 10 individuals with anterograde amnesia subsequent to hypoxic brain injury were spared on acquisition but impaired at reversal. However, 10 individuals with amnesia subsequent to ACoA aneurysm showed the opposite pattern of impaired acquisition but spared reversal. The differences between groups cannot be easily ascribed to severity of mnestic or cognitive deficit, since the two amnesic groups performed similarly on neuropsychological tests of memory, intelligence and attention. The results illustrate qualitative differences in memory impairments in hypoxic and ACoA amnesics and highlight the importance of considering etiology in evaluating mnemonic deficits in amnesic populations. (c) 2005 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