reminds me of the plight of a fellow who had an 'intimate' experience with
an elephant [on some 'most amazing videos'-type TV show the other night.
K. P. Collins
F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <7nd0vq$mtd at dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
>Just to clarify some terminology: "semantic "memory" is often used to
>refer to "knowedge of facts" and that sort of thing, dissociated from
>any "episodic" memory, i.e. without any conscious recollection of where
>or when one learned these "facts". It is easiest to think of verbal or
>at least verbally-expressed examples, and probably this is easiest to
>test, but one should not over-interpret this as referring to "semantic"
>in the more traditional sense, i.e. specifying words to designate
>particular objects.
>>For example, I think I would be fair to include (for example) knowledge
>that monkeys are smaller than elephants among "semantic" memories.
>>Within this realm, there can be dissociations, however, such as
>inability to say what a monkey or an elephant is, or to name them
>either one when seen (or described; yet another possible dissociation,
>i.e "visual confrontation" anomia vs. inability to name to verbal
>description)--and yet ability to show some "semantic" knowledge of them
>by saying which is larger when shown drawings of them with both drawn
>to the same size (e.g. 4" X 6"). (I believe this is one of the
>procedures Elizabeth and her group routinely use in exploring intact
>and defective areas in her patients' semantic memories).
>>Your friend is an example of someone with very good episodic memory (I
>assume he recalls the context in which he met these people, etc.) for a
>paticular category: i.e., people. Others may have good episodic memory
>of particular places (e.g. can describe very well at which point they
>looked out over the city from Pont Neuf, what they saw, etc.).
>>I heartily concur that memory studies have been very narrow. Not only
>have they over-emphasized verbal memory (both in the semantic and in
>the episodic realm), but in general studies of "nonverbal" memory have
>been been constricted and rather atheoretical. A perennial complaint
>of mine: my "overly-clinical" (i.e. focused on immediate needs of
>clinical assessment) colleagues tend not only to equate "nonverbal"
>with "visual", but to be shocked and confused when various "visual"
>memory tests disagree in the case of a given patient (assuming they do
>not simply give just one "visual memory" test, whatever is easiest or
>most familiar to them).
>>(NOT making this up; much consternation, discussion, and complaints
>about new "visual memory" subtests in the recently released WMS III, in
>a neuropsych listserver I subscribe to--along with some of he b est in
>the business...)
>>My own small effort along these lines has been construction of FIST
>(Face In Space Test) which Dr. Elena Kumkova and I presented at the INS
>meeting in Seattle a few years ago--an effort to measure "what"
>(ventral stream) and "where" (dorsal stream) visual memoruy separately
>but concurrently (apparently successful, judging by follow up study by
>others using left vs. right temporal lobe epilepsy patients).
>>Many years before, I had presented data from a "shape vs. (visual)
>texture" test, which suggested what men used the left hemisphere for in
>this test women used the right hemisphere, and vice versa (INS, San
>Diego, 1985; also a followup at APA and at INS aa year or soo later).
>>An example of "visual memory" I did some preliminary work on but put
>aside (may take it up again?): memory for color, BUT NOT COLOR WHICH
>CAN BE USEFULLY LABELED VERBALLY. (Psych Corp blew that one!)
>>And then there is "nonverbal NONVISUAL memory": sounds (not those which
>can be verbally labeled), odors (ditto), etc. A FEW laboratory
>studies, but nothing in clinical use (Well, partial exception:
>olfactory SEMANTIC memory, e.g. Bill Cain's low-tech approach, or the
>more expensive UPSIT; no olfactory EPISODIC memory tests that I know of
>(pace Proust!).
>>F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
>New York Neuropsychology Group
>>>>>In <932719197.47102 at server.australia.net.au> "John"
><johnhkm at netsprintXXXX.net.au> writes:
>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>
