Article

Visual paired comparison performance is impaired in a patient with selective hippocampal lesions and relatively intact item recognition

LGF Group, Department of Psychology, The University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TP, UK.
Neuropsychologia (Impact Factor: 3.45). 02/2004; 42(10):1293-300. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.03.005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In this study, we have examined visual recognition memory in a patient, YR, with discrete hippocampal damage who has shown normal or nearly normal item recognition over a large number of tests. We directly compared her performance as measured using a visual paired comparison task (VPC) with her performance on delayed matching to sample (DMS) tasks. We also investigated the effect of retention interval between familiarisation and test. YR shows good visual recognition with the DMS task up to 10 s after the familiarisation period, but only shows recognition with the VPC task for the shortest retention interval (0 s). Our results are consistent with the view that hippocampal damage disrupts recollection and recall, but not item familiarity memory.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Olivier Pascalis, Aug 23, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
72 Views
  • Source
    • "(d) The simplified version of the OiP task in which one object at test occupies a location previously occupied by a different object. rodents and research suggests that the spontaneous object recognition task is more sensitive to recognition memory deficits than the DNMS task (Clark and Squire, 2010; Nemanic et al., 2004; Pascalis et al., 2004). The use of the spontaneous object recognition task across multiple disciplines can be attributed to a number of advantages . "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This review will consider how spontaneous tasks have been applied alongside neuroscientific techniques to test complex forms of recognition memory for objects and their environmental features, e.g. the spatial location of an object or the context in which it is presented. We discuss studies that investigate the roles of the perirhinal cortex and the hippocampus in recognition memory using standard testing paradigms, and consider how these findings contribute to the ongoing debate about whether recognition memory is a single unitary process or multiple processes that can be dissociated anatomically and functionally. Due to the wide use of spontaneous tasks, the need for improved procedures that reduce animal use is acknowledged, with multiple trial paradigms discussed as a novel way of reducing variability and animal numbers in these tasks. The importance of improving translation of animal models to humans is highlighted, with emphasis on a shift away from relying on the phenomenological experience of human subjects. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 04/2015; 53. DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.03.013 · 10.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Comparisons between the consequences of hippocampal lesions in rats are more difficult to interpret as the majority of both spontaneous and reinforced nonmatching studies describe sparing of recognition memory, though other studies report deficits [4,46–53]. There is, however, evidence from studies of both monkeys and humans that hippocampal lesions can be more disruptive to visual paired comparison than DNMS tests of visual recognition memory [41] [54] [55]. Taken overall, spontaneous preference tests of recognition memory for rodents give comparable results to those found with reinforced nonmatching procedures; although for paired viewing studies with primates involving hippocampal lesions there may be added factors that explain the apparent discrepancy (see Section 4). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research into object recognition memory has been galvanised by the introduction of spontaneous preference tests for rodents. The standard task, however, contains a number of inherent shortcomings that reduce its power. Particular issues include the problem that individual trials are time consuming, so limiting the total number of trials in any condition. In addition, the spontaneous nature of the behaviour and the variability between test objects add unwanted noise. To combat these issues, the 'bow-tie maze' was introduced. Although still based on the spontaneous preference of novel over familiar stimuli, the ability to give multiple trials within a session without handing the rodents, as well as using the same objects as both novel and familiar samples on different trials, overcomes key limitations in the standard task. Giving multiple trials within a single session also creates new opportunities for functional imaging of object recognition memory. A series of studies are described that examine the expression of the immediate-early gene c-fos. Object recognition memory is associated with increases in perirhinal cortex and area Te2 c-fos activity. When rats explore novel objects the pathway from the perirhinal cortex to lateral entorhinal cortex, and then to the dentate gyrus and CA3, is engaged. In contrast, when familiar objects are explored the pathway from the perirhinal cortex to lateral entorhinal cortex, and then to CA1, takes precedence. The switch to the perforant pathway (novel stimuli) from the temporoammonic pathway (familiar stimuli) may assist the enhanced associative learning promoted by novel stimuli.
    Behavioural Brain Research 08/2014; 285. DOI:10.1016/j.bbr.2014.07.049 · 3.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "According to the revised formulation of the declarative memory hypothesis, the hippocampus is needed for episodic memory but not for semantic memory (Tulving and Markowitsch 1998). The VPA task is dependent upon the hippocampus in that no discrimination between old and new stimuli is observed following hippocampal damage in humans (McKee and Squire 1993; Manns et al. 2000; Pascalis et al. 2004), and the monkey (Bachevalier et al. 1993; Pascalis and Bachevalier 1999). Additionally, in the rat, hippocampal lesions impair performance on an objectexploration task that is analogous to the VPA task (Clark et al. 2000). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current study examined the EEG of young, old and old declined adults performing a visual paired associate task. In order to examine the effects of encoding context and stimulus repetition, target pairs were presented on either detailed or white backgrounds and were repeatedly presented during both early and late phases of encoding. Results indicated an increase in P300 amplitude in the right parietal cortex from early to late stages of encoding in older declined adults, whereas both younger adults and older controls showed a reduction in P300 amplitude in this same area from early to late phase encoding. In the right hemisphere, stimuli encoded with a white background had larger P300 amplitudes than stimuli presented with a detailed background; however, in the left hemisphere, in the later stages of encoding, stimuli presented with a detailed background had larger amplitudes than stimuli presented with a white background. Behaviourally, there was better memory for congruent stimuli reinstated with a detailed background, but this finding was for older controls only. During recognition, there was a general trend for congruent stimuli to elicit a larger amplitude response than incongruent stimuli, suggesting a distinct effect of context reinstatement on underlying patterns of physiological responding. However, behavioural data suggest that older declined adults showed no memory benefits associated with context reinstatement. When compared with older declined adults, younger adults had larger P100 amplitude responses to stimuli presented during recognition, and overall, younger adults had faster recognition reaction times than older control and older declined adults. Further analysis of repetition effects and context-based hemispheric asymmetry may prove informative in identifying declining memory performance in the elderly, potentially before it becomes manifested behaviourally.
    Experimental Brain Research 12/2011; 216(4):621-33. DOI:10.1007/s00221-011-2966-7 · 2.17 Impact Factor
Show more