pd_workshop

pd_workshop - A systems neuroscience approach to memory...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
A systems neuroscience approach to memory • Critical brain structures for declarative memory • Relational memory vs. item memory • Recollection vs. familiarity • Recall vs. recognition • What about PDs? • R-K paradigm • Associative learning • Why are lesion studies important?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Medial Temporal Lobe Structures Hippocampal formation – Dentate gyrus –H i p p o c am p u s Subicular complex Entorhinal cortex Perirhinal cortex Receives input from visual association areas and from polymodal and nonvisual unimodal cortices Parahippocampal cortex Receives input from
Background image of page 2
Does the hippocampus proper support mnemonic functions that are independent of those mediated by adjacent neocortical regions? Does recognition memory for individual items depend on the hippocampus? OR Does the hippocampus play a specialized role in the recollection of inter-item associations (relational memory), while memory for individual items (and intra-item features) is mediated by adjacent cortical regions (perirhinal, parahippocampal cortices)
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Is there a dissociation of function within the MTL? Logic : If all MTL structures contribute equally to all forms of declarative learning, then amnesic patients with MTL lesions should show similar magnitudes of impairment across a range of declarative memory tasks Evidence : Under certain encoding and retrieval conditions, amnesic patients show surprisingly good recognition memory coupled with poor recall ability
Background image of page 4
H.M. showed normal forced- choice recognition up to 1 week after encoding Freed, Corkin & Cohen, 1987 50 10 min 24 hrs Retention Interval (log scale) 72 hrs 1 week 60 Mean 1 S.D. of Normal Control Subjects (N = 7) + _ Co rr ec t Re co gn it io n (% ) 70 80 90 100 Figure by MIT OCW.
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Even 6 mo. after learning, H.M. performed within 1 SD of CON Freed, Corkin & Cohen, 1987 50 Co rr ec t Re co gn it io n (% ) 40 10 min Retention Interval 6 mos 60 80 100 Normal control subjects (N = 6) H.M. Figure by MIT OCW.
Background image of page 6
6 mo. recognition aided by attention to novelty Freed, Corkin & Cohen, 1987 6-Month Recognition Task 40 DNMS Yes-No (new) 60 50 Co rr ec t Re co gn it io n (% ) 80 100 Normal control subjects H.M. Figure by MIT OCW.
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
In contrast, H.M.’s ability to recall items (or item locations) is at chance
Background image of page 8
unexpected learning? Corkin, 2002
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 10
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/11/2011 for the course BIO 9.07 taught by Professor Ruthrosenholtz during the Spring '04 term at MIT.

Page1 / 25

pd_workshop - A systems neuroscience approach to memory...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 10. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online