{{}}

Bypassing the hippocampus:

Rapid Neocortical Acquisition of Long Term Arbitrary Associations via Fast Mapping

Tali Sharon

A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

University of Haifa

Faculty of Social Sciences

Department of Psychology

November, 2010

181

Bypassing the hippocampus:

Rapid Neocortical Acquisition of Long Term Arbitrary Associations via Fast Mapping

By: Tali Sharon

Supervised by: Dr. Asaf Gilboa and Prof. Rachel Tomer

A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

University of Haifa

Faculty of Social Sciences

Department of Psychology

November, 2010

Recommended by: __ Dr. Asaf Gilboa _________ Date: ___________________

(Advisor)

Recommended by: __ Prof. Rachel Tomer _______ Date: ___________________

(Advisor)

Approved by: __ Prof. Rachel Tomer _______ Date: ___________________

(Chairman of Ph.D Committee)

Table of Contents

Abstract7

List of tables14

List of figures15

Introduction16

Anterograde Amnesia and memory subsystems16

Ent18

Sub18

Hi18

Ath18

MD18

VL18

Fornix & MB18

PP18

Fornix18

Declarative Memory19

Declarative memory systems and consolidation21

Novel semantic learning in amnesia24

Neurocognitive mechanisms of new learning in amnesia29

The method of vanishing cues29

Errorless learning30

Varied errorless learning31

Anchoring new information to existing mental representations32

Common ground34

Summary35

Fast mapping36

What is fast mapping?36

Fast mapping in adults40

The present study44

Part I Fast mapping in adults: A behavioral study50

Methods54

Participants54

Stimuli55

Procedure57

Hypotheses62

Task performance62

Memory performance62

Results64

Task performance64

RT's64

Accuracy65

Memory performance66

Free and cued recall66

Forced choice associative recognition74

Discussion78

Part II New learning in amnesia via fast mapping: A patient study90

a. Pilot study95

Methods95

Participants95

Stimuli95

Procedure97

Hypotheses100

FM performance100

Memory performance100

Results101

FM performance101

RT's101

Choice of picture referent102

Memory performance102

Discussion104

b. A patients study107

Methods108

Participants108

Patients' MRI Volumetric analysis109

Stimuli119

Procedure122

Results125

Task performance125

RT's125

Choice of picture referent126

Recognition126

Discussion133

Methods144

Participants144

Stimuli144

Procedure145

MRI data acquisition149

Preprocessing and data analysis149

Results152

Behavioral data152

Study performance152

Memory performance152

Imaging data153

Novel-base line153

Novel-familiar157

Subsequent memory159

Discussion163

Novel-base line164

Novel-familiar167

Subsequent memory169

General Discussion176

References182

Appendices206

Appendix 1 experiment 1, list of stimuli206

Appendix 2 experiment 1, consent form210

Appendix 3 experiment 1, free recall task form, no context version211

Appendix 4 experiment 1, free recall task form, context version212

Appendix 5 experiment 1, cued recall task form, no context version213

Appendix 6 experiment 1, cued recall task form, context version215

Appendix 7 experiment 2a, stimuli218

Appendix 8 experiment 2a, analysis without consideration of the erroneous study trials224

Appendix 9 experiment 2b, patients table225

Appendix 10 experiment 2b, pilot English FM study227

Appendix 11 experiment 2b, measures of confidence ratings and semantic categorization230

Appendix 12 experiment 3, experimental protocol, imaging study232

Appendix 13 experiment 3, metal screening questionnaire237

Appendix 14 experiment 3, 'novel-familiar' masked by 'novel-base line' contrast, FM task239

Appendix 15 experiment 3, subsequent memory effects of the FM task under p0.05, two-tailed probability, Bayesian test).

Group

Task

Recognition

after 20 minutes

After a week

Controls

FM

63.36% (12.44%)

58.91% (12.75%)

EE

82.92% (12.16%)

70.56% (18.83%)

AA patients

AD

FM

63.64%

63.64%

EE

43.75%

37.50%

EC

FM

58.33%

50%

EE

50%

56.25%

NS

FM

81.81%

63.63%

EE

50%

37.5%

ShB

FM

68.75%

62.50%

EE

31.25%

37.50%

ATL patients

AA

FM

35.71%

29%

EE

25%

31.25%

KS

FM

35.71%

50%

EE

56.25%

50%

.

Table 4. Experiment 2b results

Performance of patients and controls on the recognition memory test across tasks and measurement times. Numbers indicate percent of correctly recognized associations after removal of erroneous study trials and previous familiarity. Numbers in parentheses represent standard deviations. Comparison with chance performance was analyzed using a binomial test for single subject and using a single sample t-test for the control group. Comparison with control's performance was performed using a Bayesian test, with a two tailed probability.

After a week's delay, our patients retained what they had learned. They recognized 59.94% (SD=6.65%, range: 50%-63.64%) of the associations. This performance was still significantly above chance for the 3 patients (p=0.02 for NS, p=0.01 for ShB and p=0.04 for AD; binomial test). EC was not above chance (p=0.17; binomial test), although he correctly recognized the same items on both occasions (Table 8). Furthermore, the patients' performance remained not statistically different than that of the controls (M=58.91%, SD=12.75%) (Mann Whitney's U=24.50, ns; all p's>0.05, two-tailed probability, Bayesian test). Importantly, a closer examination of the pattern of results reveals that the associations remembered by the patients and the controls on the delayed recognition test were the same as the ones they remembered the first time, as tested by a binomial probability test (p