Hirst W, Johnson M K, Phelps E A, Volpe B T
Department of Psychology, Graduate Faculty of the New School of Social Research, New York, New York 10003.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1988 Oct;14(4):758-62. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.14.4.758.
Hirst et al. (1986) reported that amnesic forced-choice recognition was relatively preserved when compared with amnesic recall. They equated normal recognition and amnesic recognition by extending exposure time for the amnesics and then comparing amnesic recall and normal recall. Amnesic recall was worse than normal recall, despite equated recognition. We conducted two experiments to extend that result. Experiment 1 established that the findings of Hirst et al. are not paradigm specific and hold when amnesic recognition and normal recognition are equated by increasing the retention interval for normals. In Experiment 2 we further established the generality of the result by examining yes-no recognition. Findings further specify the selective nature of the direct memory deficit in amnesics.
赫斯特等人（1986年）报告称，与遗忘性回忆相比，遗忘性迫选识别相对得以保留。他们通过延长遗忘症患者的曝光时间，然后比较遗忘性回忆和正常回忆，使正常识别和遗忘性识别等同起来。尽管识别等同，但遗忘性回忆比正常回忆要差。我们进行了两项实验来拓展这一结果。实验1证实，赫斯特等人的研究结果并非特定于某种范式，当通过增加正常人的保持间隔使遗忘性识别和正常识别等同时，该结果依然成立。在实验2中，我们通过检查是/否识别进一步证实了该结果的普遍性。这些发现进一步明确了遗忘症患者直接记忆缺陷的选择性本质。
