Mechanism of disorientation: Reality filtering versus content monitoring

An Electrophysiological Dissociation between Orbitofrontal Reality Filtering and Context Source Monitoring

“…This study, in conjunction with previous studies separating orbitofrontal reality filtering from content monitoring (Bouzerda-Wahlen, Nahum, Ptak, & Schnider, 2013;Wahlen et al, 2011), underscores the existence of diverse memory monitoring mechanisms which presumably dissociate from each other on the behavioral, anatomical, and physiological level. The two mechanisms juxtaposed in this study have been tacitly linked by the claim that both may explain confabulations.…”

What does a comparison of the alcoholic Korsakoff syndrome and thalamic infarction tell us about thalamic amnesia?

“…Schnider et al (1996) provided a 'test' based on this theory: they carried out two 'runs' of a continuous recognition memory task, in which, during the second 'run', previous distractors became targets and targets became distractors in order to provoke false positive responses. The authors showed that five confabulating patients were clearly differentiated on this task from other (non-confabulating) amnesic patients and healthy controls in terms of the relative number of false positive responses in the second 'run' of this recognition memory test (see also Bouzerda-Wahlen et al, 2013). However, Gilboa et al (2006) showed that non-confabulating patients with anterior communicating artery aneurysms overlapped with both confabulating patients and healthy controls in performance on this task.…”

Frontal tDCS modulates orbitofrontal reality filtering

“…Participants have to indicate picture recurrences only within the ongoing run, irrespective of familiarity from previous runs. Compared to healthy controls and nonconfabulating amnesics, confabulating (reality-confusing) patients specifically had a steep increase of falsepositive responses from run to run, indicating that they were unable to suppress the interference of memories pertaining to previously encountered, but currently irrelevant information (Schnider et al, 1996;Schnider and Ptak, 1999;Nahum et al, 2012;Bouzerda-Wahlen et al, 2013). This capacity was independent of encoding and subsequent recognition in the first run of the task.…”