Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25273998›Full record

ArticleBrain : a journal of neurology2014

Unconscious relational encoding depends on hippocampus.

Simone B Duss, Thomas P Reber, Jürgen Hänggi, Simon Schwab, Roland Wiest, René M Müri, Peter Brugger, Klemens Gutbrod, Katharina Henke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain : a journal of neurology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Visual short-term memory binding deficit in familial Alzheimer's disease.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2016
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Simone B Duss1 Division of Experimental Psychology and Neuropsychology, Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland 2 Centre for Cognition, Learning and Memory, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Thomas P Reber1 Division of Experimental Psychology and Neuropsychology, Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland 2 Centre for Cognition, Learning and Memory, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Jürgen Hänggi3 Division Neuropsychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Simon Schwab2 Centre for Cognition, Learning and Memory, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland 4 Department of Psychiatric Neurophysiology, University Hospital of Psychiatry, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Roland Wiest5 Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
René M Müri2 Centre for Cognition, Learning and Memory, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland 6 Division of Cognitive and Restorative Neurology, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Peter Brugger7 Neuropsychology Unit, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Klemens Gutbrod2 Centre for Cognition, Learning and Memory, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland 6 Division of Cognitive and Restorative Neurology, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Katharina Henke1 Division of Experimental Psychology and Neuropsychology, Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland 2 Centre for Cognition, Learning and Memory, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland henke@psy.unibe.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Textbooks divide between human memory systems based on consciousness. Hippocampus is thought to support only conscious encoding, while neocortex supports both conscious and unconscious encoding. We tested whether processing modes, not consciousness, divide between memory systems in three neuroimaging experiments with 11 amnesic patients (mean age=45.55 years, standard deviation=8.74, range=23-60) and 11 matched healthy control subjects. Examined processing modes were single item versus relational encoding with only relational encoding hypothesized to depend on hippocampus. Participants encoded and later retrieved either single words or new relations between words. Consciousness of encoding was excluded by subliminal (invisible) word presentation. Amnesic patients and controls performed equally well on the single item task activating prefrontal cortex. But only the controls succeeded on the relational task activating the hippocampus, while amnesic patients failed as a group. Hence, unconscious relational encoding, but not unconscious single item encoding, depended on hippocampus. Yet, three patients performed normally on unconscious relational encoding in spite of amnesia capitalizing on spared hippocampal tissue and connections to language cortex. This pattern of results suggests that processing modes divide between memory systems, while consciousness divides between levels of function within a memory system.

Indexed as

ConsciousnessAdultAmnesiaHippocampusHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMemoryMiddle AgedNeuroimagingPrefrontal CortexYoung Adultflexibleimplicitnondeclarativerelationalsubliminal

Identifiers

PMID25273998
PMCPMC4240286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.