Figure 2.

Behavioral performance at study (A, left) was similar for all groups, while at test (all others) SA patients showed no learning in either condition. Note that panels are labeled counterclockwise. Bars show group means and whiskers are s.e.m. (*P<0.05; ∼P<0.1). A) Left panel: all participants performed FM well above chance at study, but NC (N = 10) and MA (N = 6) groups performed better than SA patients (N = 4). Right panel: in the 3AFC recognition task, NC and MA groups performed well above chance, but SA patients performed no better than chance and much like the NNC group. Neither EE nor FM study affected recognition in SA patients. B) Left panel: free recall of unfamiliar items was poor for all groups, but the SA and MA groups averaged fewer than one recalled item. Right panel: free recall of familiar items was better than that of unfamiliar items for the NC and MA groups, but SA patients recalled very few items. C) Left panel: cued recall based on a novel visual exemplar of a studied item was performed best by the NC group, while SA patients recalled no words on average. Right panel: adding a verbal cue improved performance of the NC and MA groups, but SA patients were still near floor. Neither EE nor FM encoding affected cued recall. D) Post-test minus pre-test familiarity rating differences. NC and MA participants both reliably increased their familiarity ratings of unfamiliar items, while SA patients did not; EE and FM encoding produced similar results. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]