The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Probabilistic classification learning in amnesia.
Open accessAbstract
Amnesic patients and control subjects participated in a study of probabilistic classification learning. In each of three tasks, four different cues were each probabilistically associated with one of two outcomes. On each trial, the cues could appear alone or in combination with other cues and subjects selected the outcome they thought was correct. Feedback was provided after each trial. In each task, the amnesic patients learned gradually to associate the cues with the appropriate outcome at the same rate as control subjects, improving from 50% correct to approximately 65% correct. Presumably because the cue-outcome associations were probabilistic, declarative memory for the outcomes of specific trials was not as useful for performance as the information gradually accrued across trials. Nevertheless, declarative memory does appear to make a contribution to performance when training is extended beyond approximately 50 trials, because with further training control subjects eventually outperformed the amnesic patients. It was also demonstrated that performance on the probabilistic classification task was not the result of holding knowledge of cue-outcome associations in short-term memory, because both control subjects and amnesic patients demonstrated significant savings when testing was interrupted by a 5-min delay (experiment 2). Probabilistic classification learning appears to provide an analog in human subjects for the habit learning tasks that can be acquired normally by animals with hippocampal lesions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Memory and the hippocampus: A synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans.
Squire, L. R. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.2.195 · Cited by 5,376
Self-citationProcedural learning is impaired in Huntington's disease: Evidence from the serial reaction time task
Knopman, D., & Nissen, M. J. (1991) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/0028-3932(91)90085-m · Cited by 377
PROBABILISTICALLY REINFORCED CHOICE BEHAVIOR IN PIGEONS1
Shimp, C. P. (1966) · Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior · doi:10.1901/jeab.1966.9-443 · Cited by 257
Cited by
(2009) · Cited by 2,013
A neostriatal habit learning system in humans
Knowlton, B. J., Mangels, J. A., & Squire, L. R. (1996) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.273.5280.1399 · Cited by 1,777
Self-citationLearning and Memory Functions of the Basal Ganglia
Packard, M. G., & Knowlton, B. J. (2002) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.25.112701.142937 · Cited by 1,717
Self-citationStructure and function of declarative and nondeclarative memory systems
Squire, L. R., & Zola, S. M. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.24.13515 · Cited by 1,327
Self-citationBechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (1996) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/6.2.215 · Cited by 1,179
Metadata
- Authors
- Knowlton, B. J., Squire, L. R., & Gluck, M. A.
- Venue
- Learning & Memory
- Publisher
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
- Published
- 1994
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 106-120
- ISSN
- 1072-0502 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-5485
- OpenAlex
- W2145070660
- Cited by
- 590
- References
- 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Probabilistic classification learning in amnesia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1101/lm.1.2.106
- The paper
- Knowlton, B. J., Squire, L. R., & Gluck, M. A. (1994). Probabilistic classification learning in amnesia. Learning & Memory. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.1.2.106
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.