We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The mechanisms underlying generalized forms of dissociative (‘psychogenic’) amnesia are poorly understood. One theory suggests that memory retrieval is inhibited via prefrontal control. Findings from cognitive neuroscience offer a candidate mechanism for this proposed retrieval inhibition. By applying predictions based on these experimental findings, we examined the putative role of retrieval suppression in dissociative amnesia.
Methods
We analyzed fMRI data from two previously reported cases of dissociative amnesia. Patients had been shown reminders from forgotten and remembered time periods (colleagues and school friends). We examined the neuroanatomical overlap between regions engaged in the unrecognized compared to the recognized condition, and the regions engaged during retrieval suppression in laboratory-based tasks. Effective connectivity analyses were performed to test the hypothesized modulatory relationship between the right anterior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (raDLPFC) and the hippocampus. Both patients were scanned again following treatment, and analyses were repeated.
Results
We observed substantial functional alignment between the inhibitory regions engaged during laboratory-based retrieval suppression tasks, and those engaged when patients failed to recognize their current colleagues. This included significant activation in the raDLPFC and right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, and a corresponding deactivation across autobiographical memory regions (hippocampus, medial PFC). Dynamic causal modeling confirmed the hypothesized modulatory relationship between the raDLPFC and the hippocampus. This pattern was no longer evident following memory recovery in the first patient, but persisted in the second patient who remained amnesic.
Conclusions
Findings are consistent with an inhibitory mechanism driving down activity across core memory regions to prevent the recognition of personally relevant stimuli.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.