Relative sparing of item recognition memory in a patient with adult-onset damage limited to the hippocampus

Authors


Abstract

There is disagreement about whether selective hippocampal lesions in humans cause clear item recognition as well as recall deficits. Whereas Reed and Squire (Behav Neurosci 1997;111:667–775) found that patients with adult-onset relatively selective hippocampal lesions showed clear item recognition deficits, Vargha-Khadem et al. (Science 1997;277:376–380, Soc Neurosci Abstr 1998;24:1523) found that 3 patients who suffered selective hippocampal damage in early childhood showed clear recall deficits, but had relatively normal item recognition. Manns and Squire (Hippocampus 1999;9:495–499) argued, however, that item recognition may have been spared in these patients because the early onset of their pathology allowed compensatory mechanisms to develop. Therefore, to determine whether early lesion onset is critical for the relative sparing of item recognition and to determine whether its occurrence is influenced by task factors, we extensively examined item recognition in patient Y.R., who has pathology of adult-onset restricted to the hippocampus. Like the developmental cases, she showed clear free recall deficits on 34 tests, but her item recognition on 43 tests was relatively spared, and markedly less disrupted than her recall. Her item recognition performance relative to that of her controls was not significantly influenced by whether tests tapped visual or verbal materials, had a yes/no or forced-choice format, contained few or many items, had one or several foils per target item, used short or very long delays, or were difficult or easy for normal subjects. Interestingly, YR's bilateral hippocampal destruction was greater than at least 2 of the 3 patients of Manns and Squire (Hippocampus 1999;9:495–499). The possible reasons why item recognition differs across patients with relatively selective hippocampal damage of adult-onset and how the reasons that are truly critical can be best identified are discussed. Hippocampus 2002;12:325–340. © 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Ancillary