Literature DB >> 19289844

Impaired recollection but spared familiarity in patients with extended hippocampal system damage revealed by 3 convergent methods.

Seralynne D Vann1, Dimitris Tsivilis, Christine E Denby, Joel R Quamme, Andrew P Yonelinas, John P Aggleton, Daniela Montaldi, Andrew R Mayes.   

Abstract

To understand recognition memory, the detection of stimulus repetition, it first is necessary to resolve the debate between 2 fundamentally different models of recognition. Contemporary single-process models assume that recognition memory relies solely on the neural system required for the recall of prior events. Dual-process models assume that recognition comprises 2 independent forms of memory: one supports recall, and the other detects repeated stimuli by signaling their familiarity, the feeling of previous occurrence without the recall of any associated information. These 2 models were contrasted in patients who had undergone surgical removal of a colloid cyst, a condition associated with memory loss when accompanied by fornix and/or mammillary body atrophy. Comparisons were made between 2 groups of 9 patients that differed only with respect to the extent of mammillary body atrophy. Only the more atrophied group was impaired on tests of recall, but both groups showed normal recognition levels on a task that equates recall and recognition performance in normal participants. To explore the nature of this spared recognition, we estimated recall-based recognition and familiarity-based recognition using 3 distinct methods: self-report, receiver operating characteristics, and structural equation modeling. All 3 methods showed impaired recall-based recognition accompanied by intact familiarity in the most atrophied group, as predicted only by dual-process models. When structural equation modeling was applied to all 62 colloid cyst patients, the recall/familiarity dual-process model best explained the patients' memory pattern. The convergent evidence that mammillary body atrophy impairs recall but spares familiarity-based recognition appears irreconcilable with single-process models.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19289844      PMCID: PMC2664061          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0812097106

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  28 in total

1.  Differential cognitive effects of colloid cysts in the third ventricle that spare or compromise the fornix.

Authors:  J P Aggleton; D McMackin; K Carpenter; J Hornak; N Kapur; S Halpin; C M Wiles; H Kamel; P Brennan; S Carton; D Gaffan
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 13.501

2.  Human recognition memory: a cognitive neuroscience perspective.

Authors:  Michael D. Rugg; Andrew P. Yonelinas
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Separating the brain regions involved in recollection and familiarity in recognition memory.

Authors:  Andrew P Yonelinas; Leun J Otten; Kendra N Shaw; Michael D Rugg
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2005-03-16       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 4.  Recognition memory and the medial temporal lobe: a new perspective.

Authors:  Larry R Squire; John T Wixted; Robert E Clark
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 34.870

Review 5.  Episodic memory, amnesia, and the hippocampal-anterior thalamic axis.

Authors:  J P Aggleton; M W Brown
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 12.579

6.  Recall and recognition memory in amnesia: patients with hippocampal, medial temporal, temporal lobe or frontal pathology.

Authors:  Michael D Kopelman; Peter Bright; Joseph Buckman; Alex Fradera; Haruo Yoshimasu; Clare Jacobson; Alan C F Colchester
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2006-11-30       Impact factor: 3.139

7.  Associative recognition in a patient with selective hippocampal lesions and relatively normal item recognition.

Authors:  A R Mayes; J S Holdstock; C L Isaac; D Montaldi; J Grigor; A Gummer; P Cariga; J J Downes; D Tsivilis; D Gaffan; Qiyong Gong; K A Norman
Journal:  Hippocampus       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.899

8.  Recall and recognition in mild hypoxia: using covariance structural modeling to test competing theories of explicit memory.

Authors:  Joel R Quamme; Andrew P Yonelinas; Keith F Widaman; Neal E A Kroll; Mary J Sauvé
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.139

9.  Anterograde amnesia with fornix damage following removal of IIIrd ventricle colloid cyst.

Authors:  J R Hodges; K Carpenter
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 10.154

10.  A disproportionate role for the fornix and mammillary bodies in recall versus recognition memory.

Authors:  Dimitris Tsivilis; Seralynne D Vann; Christine Denby; Neil Roberts; Andrew R Mayes; Daniela Montaldi; John P Aggleton
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2008-06-15       Impact factor: 24.884

View more
  65 in total

Review 1.  Update on memory systems and processes.

Authors:  Lynn Nadel; Oliver Hardt
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2010-09-22       Impact factor: 7.853

2.  Projections from Gudden's tegmental nuclei to the mammillary body region in the cynomolgus monkey (Macaca fascicularis).

Authors:  Richard C Saunders; Seralynne D Vann; John P Aggleton
Journal:  J Comp Neurol       Date:  2012-04-15       Impact factor: 3.215

3.  Fornix deep brain stimulation circuit effect is dependent on major excitatory transmission via the nucleus accumbens.

Authors:  Erika K Ross; Joo Pyung Kim; Megan L Settell; Seong Rok Han; Charles D Blaha; Hoon-Ki Min; Kendall H Lee
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Uncovering a Role for the Dorsal Hippocampal Commissure in Recognition Memory.

Authors:  M Postans; G D Parker; H Lundell; M Ptito; K Hamandi; W P Gray; J P Aggleton; T B Dyrby; D K Jones; M Winter
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2020-03-14       Impact factor: 5.357

5.  Recognition memory and the hippocampus: A test of the hippocampal contribution to recollection and familiarity.

Authors:  Annette Jeneson; C Brock Kirwan; Ramona O Hopkins; John T Wixted; Larry R Squire
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2010-01-04       Impact factor: 2.460

6.  Recognition memory: adding a response deadline eliminates recollection but spares familiarity.

Authors:  Magdalena M Sauvage; Zachery Beer; Howard Eichenbaum
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2010-02-13       Impact factor: 2.460

Review 7.  Unraveling the contributions of the diencephalon to recognition memory: a review.

Authors:  John P Aggleton; Julie R Dumont; Elizabeth Clea Warburton
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2011-05-19       Impact factor: 2.460

8.  Brain mechanisms of successful recognition through retrieval of semantic context.

Authors:  Kristin E Flegal; Alejandro Marín-Gutiérrez; J Daniel Ragland; Charan Ranganath
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2014-02-24       Impact factor: 3.225

9.  Distinct anatomical correlates of discriminability and criterion setting in verbal recognition memory revealed by lesion-symptom mapping.

Authors:  J Matthijs Biesbroek; Martine J E van Zandvoort; L Jaap Kappelle; Linda Schoo; Hugo J Kuijf; Birgitta K Velthuis; Geert Jan Biessels; Albert Postma
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 5.038

10.  Distinguishing between the success and precision of recollection.

Authors:  Iain M Harlow; Andrew P Yonelinas
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2014-12-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.