flefever wrote in message <7n8qps$s7i at dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com>...
>Elizabeth Warrington (my speaker last November at the NY Academy of
>Science joint meeting with NYNG) has for many years used patients with
>odd dissociations (e.g. inability to name inanimate objects preseented
>visually, vs. inability to name animate ones presented auditorally) to
>develop a model of brain organization involving modalityXcategory
>interactions. People have, indeed tried to explain some of these odd
>cases in terms of relationships with broad modes of experience (e.g.
>inanimate objects small enough to be manipulated vs. those too large
>for this), and this makes plausible an involvement of areas related to
>actions involving objects represented in "semantic" memory (this is the
>current term for this type oof memory).
I remember the idea that some types of temporal lobe damage cause memory
loss for spectific things and came across an extension of this once where
one researcher said that it could be that one way of categorising
information is by reference to the "self" for the relevant individual, hence
my blathering about memory and self. I wonder if memory studies are too
semantically oriented, if perhaps we might learn more about memory and the
categories we create by understanding memory as part of the self mechanism
or serving it or whatever and I freely confess I don't know what "self" is I
beg do not ask for a definition. So you see how easily swayed my thinking is
by what I currently remember.
A crude eg. A few years ago I ran into an old school chum (from age 8, now
40) who was dyslexic, dropped out at 15, but has done quite well for
himself; now basically in semi-retirement. He was not too bright at school
but shows excellent street sense so I don't think he's dense even though he
occasionally says the same of himself. But what amazes me about him is his
constant references, "Johnny, do you remember so and so ... ." I never
remember these people but he speaks as if he's known them since way back
when. I have virtually no recollection of those past people and find that
after about 5 years it's all just about gone. But when it comes to
remembering semantic information of certain types ... I can be airtight. So
who has the better memory here?
Somewhere I have a reference for a study done on memory for expert chess
players and while they found that the chess players were excellent for
logical piece positions when placed randomly they did little better than
norms. So memory is something very specific in its effectiveness, perhaps
not so global at all.
>HOWEVER, I don't know if such memory deficits are "OFTEN" correlated
>with plausibly specific "motor/sensory" sites. If you can give a
>reference for the example you use, it wouod be helpful; one could
>trace backwards (via the article's references) and forwards (via
>Science Citation Abstracts) to see how oftern similar findings have
>been reported.
I have never heard such memory deficits.
John
Remove XXXX in reply address
