The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Memory and metamemory: Comparisons between patients with frontal lobe lesions and amnesic patients
Open accessAbstract
Metamemory refers to knowledge about one’s own memory capabilities. The accuracy of metamemory judgments (i.e., feeling of knowing) was tested in patients with frontal lobe lesions and control subjects. Their performance was compared to other findings for 6 patients with Korsakoff s syndrome and 5 other patients with amnesia. In Experiment 1, subjects were presented sentences and then asked to recall key words from each sentence. They then judged their feeling of knowing for nonrecalled items in terms of how likely they thought they would be to recognize the key words on a subsequent recognition test. Patients with frontal lobe lesions exhibited impaired feeling of knowing when memory was weakened by imposing a 1–3-day delay between sentence presentation and recall. Experiment 2 tested feeling-of-knowing accuracy for nonrecalled general-information questions. On this test, patients with frontal lobe lesions performed normally. The metamemory deficit observed in Experiment 1 suggests that the frontal lobes contribute, at least in part, to metamemory judgments. The 5 (non-Korsakoff) amnesic patients had intact metamemory functions, but patients with Korsakoff’s syndrome did not. These findings suggest that the metamemory impairment in patients with Korsakoff’s syndrome is due, in part, to frontal lobe pathology.
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
A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions
Nelson, T. O. (1984) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.109 · Cited by 976
Memory and metamemory: a study of the feeling-of-knowing phenomenon in amnesic patients
Shimamura, A. P., & Squire, L. R. (1986) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.12.3.452 · Cited by 294
Self-citation
Cited by
On a confusion about a function of consciousness
Block, N. (1995) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00038188 · Cited by 3,364
Metamemory: A Theoretical Framework and New Findings
Nelson, T. O. (1990) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60053-5 · Cited by 2,583
Toward a theory of episodic memory: The frontal lobes and autonoetic consciousness.
Wheeler, M. A., Stuss, D. T., & Tulving, E. (1997) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.331 · Cited by 1,751
Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning
Koriat, A. (1997) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349 · Cited by 1,363
The Structure and Organization of Memory
Squire, L. R., Knowlton, B., & Musen, G. (1993) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.002321 · Cited by 1,123
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Janowsky, J. S., Shimamura, A. P., & Squire, L. R.
- Venue
- Psychobiology
- Published
- 1989-03
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-11
- ISSN
- 0889-6313 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1560064733
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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
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.