A tale of two paradigms or metatheoretical approaches to cognitive neuropsychology: did Schmolck, Stefanacci, and Squire (2000) show that hippocampal lesions only impair memory, whereas adjacent (extrahippocampal) lesions impair detection and explanation of sentence ambiguity?
This note discusses two fundamentally different paradigms or metatheoretical approaches that currently guide cognitive neuropsychology: the Theoretical- vs. Anatomical-paradigms. To illustrate these paradigms, we compare a Theoretical-paradigm paper (MacKay & James, 2001) with an Anatomical-paradigm paper (Schmolck, Stefanacci, & Squire, 2000): These papers report virtually identical experiments on relations between language, memory, and hippocampal systems, using the same task (the detection and explanation of ambiguities in sentences that participants know are ambiguous), virtually identical ambiguous sentences, and at least one identical participant (the amnesic HM). However, MacKay and James made strikingly different claims from Schmolck et al., and we show that the Schmolck et al. claims comport not with their data but with an unstated theory to which they are implicitly committed within the Anatomical-paradigm.
MacKay
D G
DG
Psychology Dept, University of California, Los Angeles 90095-1563, USA.
D001037:Aphasia / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000503:physiopathology; D003072:Cognition Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000503:physiopathology*; D019336:Cognitive Science; D006624:Hippocampus / Q000503:physiopathology*; D006801:Humans; D008569:Memory Disorders / Q000503:physiopathology*; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests; D009484:Neuropsychology; D011582:Psychological Theory