True presentations are distinguished from those that are false by the use of memory, classification and comparison.
At the neurobiological level of memory classification, a distinction has traditionally been made between a hippocampus-dependent memory system subserving explicit (declarative) memory formation, and a more heterogeneous hippocampus-independent system underlying different types of implicit (procedural) memory formation [6] [11].
Our findings suggest that recognition memory is mediated by classification of novel exemplars as a match or a mismatch, based on their visual similarity to familiar prototypes.
Implications of the present results for the classification of memory tasks with respect to systems and/or processes are discussed.
For example, presenting two exemplars from confusable categories simultaneously can support memory for those exemplars and classification of later novel category members because it enables learners to discriminate between categories (Wahlheim, Dunlosky, & Jacoby, 2011).
However, in this first study, enrolled patients had memory complaints, without a better classification of the type of disease pathology causing such cognitive deficits; the methodology of cognitive intervention was not explained.
Given their high conversion rate into memory, perhaps a significant proportion of KLRG1lo/IL-7Rαlo cellshouldld be considered as memory precursor cells, which contradicts the current classification of MPECs as IL-7Rαhi cells.
Since Chua and Yang [1, 2] introduced a cellular neural network in 1988, it has received great attention because of its various applications such as classification of patterns, associative memories and optimization, etc.
The functional distribution within the memory categories is evaluated according to the Gene Ontology (GO) classification of the A. thaliana homologs.
Follow Dale Eisinger on Twitter.
