Recognition and Recall in Amnesics

William Hirst, Marcia K. Johnson, Jung K. Kim, Elizabeth Phelps, Gail Risse, Bruce T. Volpe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Although there is considerable agreement that performance in direct memory tasks (e.g., recall, recognition) is more disrupted by amnesia than performance in indirect memory tasks (e.g., mirror reading, word completion), one may be able to further circumscribe the deficit within the domain of direct memorytasks. The present article explores whether recall is disproportionately disrupted by amnesia compared to recognition. If amnesia affects memory uniformly across different direct memory measures, recall of normal controls should not differ from the recall of amnesics when recognition scores of these two groups are equated. On the other hand, if recall isdisproportionately disrupted, normal recall should be superior to amnesic recall even when recognition is equated. The present study equated amnesic recognition with that of controls by providing amnesics with 8 s of study time and normal subjects with 0.5 s. Amnesics with Korsakoff's syndrome, amnesics with other etiologies, and appropriate controlswere examined. Normal recall was superior to amnesic recall even when no differences were found in recognition. The results further specify the selective nature of amnesia.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)445-451
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition
Volume12
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1986

Fingerprint

Amnesia
etiology
performance
deficit
Recognition (Psychology)
Reading
Group

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Recognition and Recall in Amnesics. / Hirst, William; Johnson, Marcia K.; Kim, Jung K.; Phelps, Elizabeth; Risse, Gail; Volpe, Bruce T.

In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, Vol. 12, No. 3, 07.1986, p. 445-451.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hirst, William ; Johnson, Marcia K. ; Kim, Jung K. ; Phelps, Elizabeth ; Risse, Gail ; Volpe, Bruce T. / Recognition and Recall in Amnesics. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition. 1986 ; Vol. 12, No. 3. pp. 445-451.
@article{7fe302f54eb947a1afe70c086588e94c,
title = "Recognition and Recall in Amnesics",
abstract = "Although there is considerable agreement that performance in direct memory tasks (e.g., recall, recognition) is more disrupted by amnesia than performance in indirect memory tasks (e.g., mirror reading, word completion), one may be able to further circumscribe the deficit within the domain of direct memorytasks. The present article explores whether recall is disproportionately disrupted by amnesia compared to recognition. If amnesia affects memory uniformly across different direct memory measures, recall of normal controls should not differ from the recall of amnesics when recognition scores of these two groups are equated. On the other hand, if recall isdisproportionately disrupted, normal recall should be superior to amnesic recall even when recognition is equated. The present study equated amnesic recognition with that of controls by providing amnesics with 8 s of study time and normal subjects with 0.5 s. Amnesics with Korsakoff's syndrome, amnesics with other etiologies, and appropriate controlswere examined. Normal recall was superior to amnesic recall even when no differences were found in recognition. The results further specify the selective nature of amnesia.",
author = "William Hirst and Johnson, {Marcia K.} and Kim, {Jung K.} and Elizabeth Phelps and Gail Risse and Volpe, {Bruce T.}",
year = "1986",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1037/0278-7393.12.3.445",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "445--451",
journal = "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition",
issn = "0278-7393",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recognition and Recall in Amnesics

AU - Hirst, William

AU - Johnson, Marcia K.

AU - Kim, Jung K.

AU - Phelps, Elizabeth

AU - Risse, Gail

AU - Volpe, Bruce T.

PY - 1986/7

Y1 - 1986/7

N2 - Although there is considerable agreement that performance in direct memory tasks (e.g., recall, recognition) is more disrupted by amnesia than performance in indirect memory tasks (e.g., mirror reading, word completion), one may be able to further circumscribe the deficit within the domain of direct memorytasks. The present article explores whether recall is disproportionately disrupted by amnesia compared to recognition. If amnesia affects memory uniformly across different direct memory measures, recall of normal controls should not differ from the recall of amnesics when recognition scores of these two groups are equated. On the other hand, if recall isdisproportionately disrupted, normal recall should be superior to amnesic recall even when recognition is equated. The present study equated amnesic recognition with that of controls by providing amnesics with 8 s of study time and normal subjects with 0.5 s. Amnesics with Korsakoff's syndrome, amnesics with other etiologies, and appropriate controlswere examined. Normal recall was superior to amnesic recall even when no differences were found in recognition. The results further specify the selective nature of amnesia.

AB - Although there is considerable agreement that performance in direct memory tasks (e.g., recall, recognition) is more disrupted by amnesia than performance in indirect memory tasks (e.g., mirror reading, word completion), one may be able to further circumscribe the deficit within the domain of direct memorytasks. The present article explores whether recall is disproportionately disrupted by amnesia compared to recognition. If amnesia affects memory uniformly across different direct memory measures, recall of normal controls should not differ from the recall of amnesics when recognition scores of these two groups are equated. On the other hand, if recall isdisproportionately disrupted, normal recall should be superior to amnesic recall even when recognition is equated. The present study equated amnesic recognition with that of controls by providing amnesics with 8 s of study time and normal subjects with 0.5 s. Amnesics with Korsakoff's syndrome, amnesics with other etiologies, and appropriate controlswere examined. Normal recall was superior to amnesic recall even when no differences were found in recognition. The results further specify the selective nature of amnesia.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0022746371&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0022746371&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/0278-7393.12.3.445

DO - 10.1037/0278-7393.12.3.445

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 445

EP - 451

JO - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

JF - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

SN - 0278-7393

IS - 3

ER -