↓ Skip to main content

Specific, personally meaningful cues can benefit episodic prospection in medial temporal lobe amnesia

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Clinical Psychology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Specific, personally meaningful cues can benefit episodic prospection in medial temporal lobe amnesia
Published in
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, September 2015
DOI 10.1111/bjc.12095
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kwan, Donna, Kurczek, Jake, Rosenbaum, R. Shayna

Abstract

To determine whether severity of episodic prospection impairment in medial temporal lobe (MTL) amnesia is reduced by the types of cues that are used to elicit personal future episodes and, if so, whether episodic memory impairment is similarly affected. Multiple case study of five individuals with MTL amnesia and healthy control participants. Participants were administered two tests of episodic prospection: A commonly used Galton-Crovitz task that uses generic cues (e.g., lemon) and a novel task that includes specific, personally meaningful cues referring to planned or plausible future events (e.g., granddaughter's recital). Narratives were scored for episodic detail using the Autobiographical Interview protocol (Levine et al., 2002), which distinguishes between internal (episodic) details and external (non-episodic) details. Results showed that specific, personally meaningful cues led to an appreciable reduction of episodic memory and prospection impairment in three of the amnesic cases tested. Clinical benefit from more structured, self-related cues may depend on factors such as extent of MTL damage or general severity of episodic memory and prospection impairment, highlighting the importance of methodological approaches to neuropsychological research that treat each case on an individual basis. In cases of mild-moderate amnesia, specific, personal cues afford more detailed episodic remembering and prospective imagining than individual cue words. Previous reports of episodic prospection impairment in medial temporal lobe (MTL) amnesia might misrepresent an individual case's true prospective abilities Specific cues drawn from a patient's everyday life have greater ecological validity than the more typical generic cues used to elicit episodic prospection and can aid some individuals with MTL amnesia in the ability to imagine future experiences Assessment and rehabilitation tools for MTL amnesic populations should attempt to minimize broad, open-ended questions and instead provide more structured and personally meaningful cues to guide responses Further research is needed to determine case-specific characteristics that best predict benefit from specific, personal cues. These might include extent of MTL damage and overall severity of episodic memory and prospection impairment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 32%
Student > Master 3 16%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Unspecified 2 11%
Other 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 53%
Unspecified 4 21%
Neuroscience 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2015.
All research outputs
#2,283,923
of 6,500,270 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Clinical Psychology
#174
of 274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,349
of 201,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Clinical Psychology
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,500,270 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 64th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 201,764 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.