King's College, University of London, UK.
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2000 Oct 1;17(7):585-621. doi: 10.1080/026432900750002172.
A detailed critique of the literature on focal retrograde amnesia is provided. Some of the cases commonly cited in this literature had, in fact, severely impaired anterograde memory, most often involving visuospatial material. Other cases showed poor anterograde memory in more moderate or subtle form, begging the question of whether "like" had really been compared with "like" across the retrograde and anterograde domains: there may be alternative explanations for the observed patterns of performance. One suggestion is that these patients suffer an impairment of long-term consolidation, an attractive hypothesis but one which requires much more rigorous testing than has occurred to date and which implies that the underlying problem is not specific to retrograde memory. Moreover, within the literature on cases of focal retrograde amnesia, differing patterns of performance on tests of autobiographical memory or remote semantic knowledge have been reported, and sometimes these may have reflected factors other than the sites of lesions. Many of the most convincing cases in this literature have been those in whom there was an initially severe anterograde amnesia as well as an extensive retrograde loss: in these cases, the critical issue is what determines differential patterns of recovery across these domains-it is likely that both physiological and psychological factors are important. A second, somewhat different, group are patients with semantic dementia, who show a pronounced recency effect in remote memory but, in these cases, the most parsimonious explanation may be in terms of predominantly semantic/linguistic and/or strategic factors. A third group are those with transient epileptic amnesia but, in these cases, the memory gaps may reflect past (anterograde) ictal activity. A fourth group are those in whom psychogenic factors may well be relevant. Although it is difficult to "prove" psychological causation, the logical difficulties in attributing causation where brain lesions are either very subtle or multiple have been considerably underestimated in the neuropsychological literature. Given these problems, in uncertain or equivocal cases, it is as critical to present the relevant psychological data for the reader to evaluate as it is to provide the pertinent memory test scores: this is underemphasised in many of the studies reviewed. Publication of cases in the absence of such data may lead to faulty clinical, neuropsychological, and cognitive conclusions. Abbreviations : AA: anterograde amnesia; AMI: Autobiographical Memory Interview; PTA: posttraumatic amnesia; RA: retrograde amnesia; RMT: Recognition Memory Test; TEA: transient epileptic amnesia; TGA: transient global amnesia; WMS: Wechsler Memory Scale.
提供了对焦点逆行性遗忘文献的详细批评。在这方面的文献中经常引用的一些案例实际上已经严重损害了顺行记忆,通常涉及视觉空间材料。其他病例表现出较轻或较轻微的顺行记忆障碍,这就提出了一个问题,即逆行和顺行领域之间是否真正进行了“相似”的比较:对于观察到的表现模式,可能存在其他解释。一种建议是,这些患者患有长期巩固障碍,这是一个很有吸引力的假设,但需要比目前更严格的测试,并且意味着潜在的问题不是特定于逆行记忆。此外,在焦点逆行性遗忘的文献中,已经报道了自传体记忆或远程语义知识测试中不同的表现模式,有时这些可能反映了除病变部位以外的其他因素。该文献中最令人信服的案例大多是那些最初有严重顺行性遗忘和广泛逆行性遗忘的案例:在这些情况下,关键问题是是什么决定了这些领域的恢复模式的差异——很可能生理和心理因素都很重要。第二组是语义性痴呆患者,他们在远程记忆中表现出明显的近因效应,但在这些情况下,最合理的解释可能是基于主要的语义/语言和/或策略因素。第三组是短暂性癫痫性遗忘症患者,但在这些情况下,记忆空白可能反映了过去(顺行性)发作期间的活动。第四组是心理因素可能相关的患者。虽然很难“证明”心理原因,但在神经心理学文献中,对脑损伤非常细微或多发性的因果关系的逻辑困难被大大低估了。鉴于这些问题,在不确定或模棱两可的情况下,向读者呈现相关的心理数据以供评估与提供相关的记忆测试分数一样重要:在许多综述研究中,这一点被强调不够。在没有此类数据的情况下发布病例可能导致临床、神经心理学和认知结论错误。缩写:AA:顺行性遗忘症;AMI:自传体记忆访谈;PTA:创伤后遗忘症;RA:逆行性遗忘症;RMT:识别记忆测试;TEA:短暂性癫痫性遗忘症;TGA:短暂性全面遗忘症;WMS:韦氏记忆量表。