Cited by 308Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and Memory

Double dissociations of memory and executive functions in working memory tasks following frontal lobe excisions, temporal lobe excisions or amygdalo-hippocampectomy in man

Owen, Adrian M., Morris, Robin G., Sahakian, Barbara J., Polkey, Charles E., Robbins, Trevor W.·1996·Brain

Abstract

Thirty-two neurosurgical patients with unilateral or bilateral frontal lobe excisions, 41 patients with unilateral temporal lobe lesions and 19 patients who had undergone unilateral amygdalo-hippocampectomy were compared with matched controls on a computerized test of spatial working memory. A significant deficit was observed in the frontal lobe group, even at the least challenging level of task difficulty and this impairment was found to relate to the inefficient use of a particular searching strategy shown to improve performance on this task. In contrast, deficits in the temporal lobe group and the amygdalo-hippocampectomy group were only observed at the most difficult level of the task and in neither group could the deficit be related to the inefficient use of any particular searching strategy. In a follow-up study, the three patient groups were compared on analogous computerized tests of visual and verbal working memory. No deficits were observed in the frontal lobe group. By comparison, both the temporal lobe patients and the amygdalo-hippocampectomy group were significantly impaired in the visual working memory condition but not in the verbal working memory condition. These deficits were clearly evident at all levels of task difficulty and were not related to any particular searching strategy. The data are discussed in terms of the relative contributions of "executive' and "mnemonic' mechanisms to the contrasting, material dependent deficits observed in the frontal and temporal lobe groups.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/brain/119.5.1597

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Owen, A. M., Morris, R. G., Sahakian, B. J., Polkey, C. E., & Robbins, T. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of London (GB)
  • Maudsley Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Owen, Adrian M.
Venue
Brain
Published
1996
Volume
119
Issue
5
Pages
1597-1615
ISSN
  • 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2156
OpenAlex
W2053267868
Cited by
308
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 15
FWCI
9.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Newcastle University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
working memory, executive function, temporal lobe lesions, amygdalohippocampectomy, spatial working memory, visual working memory, verbal working memory, frontal lobe, temporal lobe, task difficulty
MeSH terms
Adult, Amygdala, Brain Diseases, Female, Frontal Lobe, Hippocampus, Humans, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Task Performance and Analysis, Temporal Lobe

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review