Destination memory 1 Introduction

Destination memory

1

Introduction: Destination memory, which is socially driven, refers to the ability to remember to whom one has sent information. Our study investigated destination memory in patients with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Methods: Patients and control participants were invited to tell proverbs (e.g., “the pen is mightier than the sword”) to pictures of celebrities (e.g., Barack Obama). Then they were asked to indicate to which celebrity they had previously told the proverbs. Besides the assessment of destination memory, participants performed a binding task in which they were required to associate letters with their corresponding location. Results: Analysis demonstrated less destination memory and binding in patients with TBIs than in controls. In both populations, significant correlations were observed between destination memory and performances on the binding task. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate difficulty in the ability to attribute information to its appropriate destination in TBI patients, perhaps owing to difficulties in binding separate information together to form a coherent representation of an event in memory. Keywords: binding; destination memory; memory; traumatic brain injuries;

Destination memory

2

Background Destination memory is the ability to remember to whom one has sent information (e.g., did I ask my colleague X or Y to send me that file? did I tell you that joke before?). Although the concept of destination memory is relatively recent [1, 2] the concept is rooted in the work of Koriat, Ben-Zur (3) who investigated the preponderance of action repetitions in normal aging (e.g., telling the same story over and over, repeating the same activity over and over). Interestingly, destination memory has been found to be associated with social cognition. For instance, research has found higher destination memory for familiar than for unfamiliar faces [4], as well as higher destination memory for emotional than for neutral faces [5, 6]. A relationship between destination memory and theory of mind has also been established [7, 8]. According to this research, theory of mind allows deeper processing of the cognitive and affective states of one’s interlocutors, and consequently a better association between information and its destination. Regardless of its social dimension, destination memory can be intimately linked with context memory. Context memory, a component of the episodic memory system, refers to the ability to remember conditions in which an event occurred such as where and when it occurred [9, 10]. Empirical evidence has demonstrated significant correlations between destination memory and context memory [11, 12]. This relationship can be attributed to the fact that both destination and context memory require the process of binding [13]. Binding refers to the ability to associate an event (the what) with its context of acquisition (the where, when, who, and/or to whom) to form an integrated episode [14]. The association between destination memory and context memory is relevant to the present study because, unlike the lack of research on destination memory in TBIs, there is a wealth of research on context memory.

Destination memory

3

Compromise of context memory after following traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) has already been demonstrated [15]. This compromise was observed in a study in which participants were exposed to related words (e.g., sit, table, legs, seat …), such that the words were highly related to an unexposed word (i.e., chair) [16]. TBI patients showed high false recognition of the unexposed word, i.e. they misattributed the encoding context of that word by erroneously claiming that it was previously exposed. Interestingly, they showed great confidence in their false memories. Context memory compromise was observed in another study in which TBI patients were required to remember the spatial location of words [17]. In a related vein, TBI patients have difficulty in remembering the frequency of occurrence of previously exposed words [18, 19]. They also tend to misattribute words to inappropriate encoding contexts (i.e., to lists other than the original ones) [20]. Other studies have observed impairment in the temporal order judgment of word lists [21] or actions [22], whether learning occurred intentionally or incidentally. Together, there is evidence to suggest impairment of context memory in TBI, especially for explicit recall. While there is a wealth of research on context memory in TBI, there is, to our knowledge, no published research on destination memory in this field. The evaluation of destination memory in TBI is important owing to the consequences of compromise of destination memory on patients’ everyday life (e.g., repeating the same information to the same interlocutor, expecting care from a nurse when the patient had initially asked another nurse for it). Considering the research suggesting compromise of context memory in TBIs patients [15], we expected to find a similar compromise in destination memory. Since destination memory is believed to be dependent on binding (i.e., associating information to its corresponding destination) [13], we expected to find significant correlations between destination memory and binding in TBI patients.

Destination memory 4 Methods Participants The study included 22 participants with a TBI (8 women and 14 men; M age = 33.4 years, SD = 12.90, range = 20 to 47 years; M years of formal education = 12.96, SD = 2.49, range = 10 to 16 years) and 25 control participants (9 women and 16 men; M age = 31.3 years, SD = 12.21, range = 19 to 46 years; M years of formal education = 12.17, SD = 2.89, range = 10 to 16 years). The two populations were matched for gender [χ2(1, N = 47) = .19, p > .10], age [t(47) = .83, p > .10] and educational level [t(47) = .51, p > .10]. For all participants, exclusion criteria were preexisting neurological disease (other than TBI), preexisting psychiatric condition, or history of substance abuse/dependence. The TBI participants were at least one-year post-injury and had suffered severe closedhead injuries as indicated by post-traumatic amnesia (M = 22.32 days, SD = 22.61, range = 1 to 152 days). They had also experienced a loss of consciousness for longer than two hours (M = 11.35 days, SD = 12.11, range = 0 to 41 days), as reported in their medical records or obtained by careful clinical questioning of the participant and/or a knowledgeable informant. The participants had a severe TBI as testified by a score of 8 or less (M = 5.61, SD = 1.71, range = 3 to 8) on the Glasgow Coma Scale, the score being documented in the emergency room or at the scene of the accident. All TBIs resulted from a blow to the head by external forces/external objects and/or acceleration– deceleration movement of the brain. Fifteen participants were involved in motor vehicle accidents as a driver or a passenger, two were involved in a bicycle accident, two were pedestrians struck by motor vehicles, two were victims of a physical assault, and one patient suffered a long fall. Patients suffered a widespread injury (diffuse oedema or diffuse axonal injury, n = 5), focal frontal and/or

Destination memory

5

temporal damage (n = 8), or mixed brain damage (n = 9). The patients generally showed a heterogeneity of severity and lesions as is usual in this population [23, 24]. General cognitive characteristics To measure general cognitive function, the participants were administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, a 30-item cognitive screening tool that screens attention, orientation, language, verbal memory, visuospatial and executive function. The TBI participants demonstrated lower general cognitive ability than the control participants, with a mean of 21.10/30 (SD = 6.10) and 28.31 (SD = 1.02) [t(47) = 5.11, p < .001], respectively. To assess executive function (i.e., shifting), participants were administered the Plus-Minus task which included three lists, each containing 20 numbers. Participants had to 1) add one to each number (List 1), 2) subtract one from each number (List 2), and 3) add and subtract one alternately (List 3). The shifting score was the difference between the time participants needed to complete List 3 and the average time that they needed to complete Lists 1 and 2. The patients had a slower performance than the controls, with a mean of 27.75 sec (SD = 33.74) and 10.80 (SD =6.32) [t(47) = 6.41, p < .001], respectively.

Procedures Destination memory The evaluation of destination memory included a study phase, a filled delay phase to prevent reliance on immediate memory, and a recognition phase. The study phase included 24 trials, in which participants were invited to tell well-known proverbs (e.g., “the pen is mightier than the sword”) to celebrities (e.g., Barack Obama), without any time limit. Each proverb was printed in black Times New Roman 48-point font on a single A4 sheet of paper under one color picture depicting a celebrity’s face. Participants were explicitly informed that their memory of the

Destination memory

6

association between proverbs and faces would be tested in a later session. Note that, in previous research [5], we controlled the familiarity of celebrity faces and proverbs in participants who were of a similar age to those in the current study. The study phase was followed by the filled delay phase in which participants were invited to read aloud strings of three-digit numbers for one minute. The filled delay phase was followed by the recognition phase in which the 24 proverbs and faces were paired and presented in random order, with 12 original pairs and 12 pairs reorganized into new pairs. Pairs were exposed one at a time, with the proverb below the face, and both the proverb and the face were printed on a single A4 sheet of paper. For each pair, participants were invited to indicate, with no time limit, whether they had previously told that proverb to that face or not. No feedback on performance was given during this phase. As recommended for analyzing recognition memory [25], performance on the destination memory task referred to the proportion of hits (correct ‘‘yes’’ responses) minus the proportion of false alarms (incorrect ‘‘yes’’ responses). Hence, a score of 1 means that the participant recognized all the pairs correctly without any false alarms. Binding The binding task was used to assess the participants’ ability to link disparate contextual features into coherent events. The task consisted of 20 trials. In each trail, participants were exposed to three subsequent grids for 3 seconds each, each grid showing an uppercase letter in a different location. Participants were asked to retain the location of the letters in the grid. After a retention interval of 8 seconds, a grid was shown again with a letter. The letter was displayed in lower case to control for a possible priming effect. The participants were then invited to decide whether the letter appeared at the same location as before or not. Each grid was 16 × 16 cm and printed on a white A4 sheet of paper. All trials were sequentially combined in a workbook so that

Destination memory

7

the experimenter could easily conduct the presentation. Like the destination memory performance, the recognition score on the binding task referred to the proportion of hits (i.e., correct “yes” responses) minus the proportion of false alarms (i.e., incorrect “yes” responses).

Results We assessed differences between TBI participants and controls on destination memory and binding. Comparisons were established with the Mann-Whitney U test. No parametric tests were used owing to abnormal distribution of data, as observed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. Results were provided with the observed power: d = .2 can be considered a small effect size, d = .5 represents a medium effect size and d = .8 refers to a large effect size [26]. We also provided Eta squared values: η2 = .01 can be considered a small effect size, η2 = .06 represents a medium effect size and η2 = .14 is a large effect size [26]. Note that d and η2 were calculated for non-parametric tests according to the recommendations of Rosenthal and DiMatteo (27) and Ellis (28). We also calculated Spearman’s correlations between destination memory and binding performance separately for TBI participants and controls. Low destination memory and binding in TBI Destination memory and binding performances are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. Destination memory was worse in TBI participants than in controls (Z = -4.89, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 2.03, η2 = .51), as was binding (Z = 4.23, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.56, η2 = .38). [INSERT FIGURE 1 APPROXIMATELY HERE] [INSERT FIGURE 2 APPROXIMATELY HERE]

Destination memory

8

Correlations between destination memory and binding in TBI Significant correlations were observed between destination memory and binding performance, both in TBI participants (r = .52, p < .01) and in controls (r = .55, p < .01).

Discussion TBI patients showed lower destination memory and lower binding than controls. Furthermore, destination memory and binding were significantly correlated in both groups. The compromise of destination memory observed in our TBI participants is in agreement with other research on the compromise of context memory in TBI ((for review, see [15]. The latter compromise was observed in a variety of tasks requiring memory for spatial location of words [17], memory for list-membership of studied words [16, 20], and temporal order judgment of word lists [21] or actions [22]. Therefore, the compromise of destination memory in TBIs can be associated with the compromise of the ability to remember the context in which information was acquired. This assumption is supported by the significant correlations between destination memory and binding in both of our groups. In other words, the difficulty of our TBI participants to remember to whom proverbs were told could be linked with their difficulty to associate an event with its context of acquisition to form an integrated episode. Mirroring this assumption, Coste, Agar (29) found that binding was involved in compromise of autobiographical memory, i.e. memory of long-term personal information in TBI patients. They assessed the involvement of three executive functions (shifting, inhibition and updating) and two binding functions (short-term formation and maintenance of multimodal representations) in memory of four autobiographical levels (memory of lifetime periods, general events, specific events, and specific details of a specific event) in TBI patients. They found that the patients were impaired on memory for general events,

Destination memory

9

and especially on memory for specific events. They were also impaired on executive and binding tasks. Interestingly, binding mediated a modest but reliable proportion of autobiographical memory deficits in TBI patients. Noteworthy, as illustrated in Figure 2, a high variability in binding was observed among patients, which can be attributed to the heterogeneity of cognitive performances in TBI. There is also a high variability in brain damage (e.g., diffuse axonal damage, focal lesions) which may lead to different cognitive performances in TBI patients. Although we tend to associate destination memory compromise in TBI with binding deficits, there are crucial differences between both abilities. While destination memory and binding require associating information with its encoding context, destination memory mainly involves processing the person to whom information is given. This assumption is supported by the significant, but not total, correlations between destination memory and binding in our TBI participants and controls. In this view, although destination memory compromise in TBI may be associated with binding deficits, other factors are likely to contribute to the compromise in destination memory. In our opinion, these factors are mainly related to social cognition. As emphasized in the introduction, the specificity of destination memory lies in its social relevance (for a review, see, [13]. Supporting this assumption, research has demonstrated higher memory for familiar than for unfamiliar destinations [4] and better memory for emotional than for neutral destinations [5, 6]. A relationship between destination memory and the ability to interpret and predict others’ mental states has also been demonstrated [7, 8]. According to this research, the ability to infer and monitor the cognitive states of a destination (i.e., theory of mind) allows better destination memory. The social characteristic of destination memory has been also emphasized in studies demonstrating a relationship between destination memory and deception [30, 31]. This relationship was attributed to the fact that, when deceiving someone, one needs to remember to

Destination memory

10

whom a falsified story was previously told; one may include inconsistencies and the deception will probably become apparent. The implications of social processing on destination memory were also observed in a study on stereotypes [32] in which participants were invited to tell facts related to medicine and mechanics to an image of a physician, and different facts related to medicine and mechanics to an image of a mechanic. Successively, participants were invited to remember to whom each fact had been previously told. Results demonstrated higher destination memory for consistent facts (i.e. facts concerning medicine that were previously told to the physician) than for inconsistent facts (i.e. facts concerning medicine that were previously told to the mechanic). The study found that our memories often lack contextual information distinctive enough to define the destination, the lack being compensated for by relying on available stereotypical characteristics to make contextual judgments. Together, there is a wealth of research demonstrating how destination memory can interact with social cognition. This research is important because, like destination memory, social cognition is compromised in TBI patients. TBIs impact social behavior negatively [33]. Difficulties in social functioning are common after TBIs and have negative consequences on social relationships and re-integration into society [34-36]. While physical and motor symptoms tend to stabilize or diminish over time after injuries, cognitive and social disturbances cause the greatest long-term distress [37, 38]. Severe TBIs are associated with low peer acceptance and high levels of rejection in society [35]. The compromise of social cognition after a TBI was assessed by Ubukata, Tanemura (39) who administered patients tests of emotional and cognitive theory of mind; compared with control participants, TBIs patients showed impairments in all tasks. Interestingly, regression analysis demonstrated that performance on emotional theory of mind was the best predictor of functional outcomes of TBIs (physical dependence, cognitive dependence, reduced mobility, reduced occupation, reduced social

Destination memory

11

integration, and economic self-insufficiency). Together, these findings demonstrate the negative effects of TBIs on social processing. The present findings now demonstrate the negative effects of TBIs on the ability to remember to whom information was previously told. These findings extend previous research demonstrating negative effects of TBI on several components of memory, such as episodic memory [40, 41], working memory [42-46], and autobiographical memory [29, 47]. One shortcoming of this study is that episodic memory was not assessed. Such an assessment would allow the relationship between compromise of both destination memory and episodic memory in TBI patients to be investigated. Another suggestion for future research would be to assess relationship between compromise of destination memory and performances of TBI patients on tests of social cognition (e.g., tests of theory of mind), this to further investigate the relationship between destination memory and social cognition in TBI. To summarize, this study highlights the compromise of destination memory in TBI patients. Future research should seek to examine further the relationship between destination memory compromise and deficits in social cognition in such patients, i.e. deficits in emotional processing and/or theory of mind. Studies on memory compromise in TBI patients are usually either of the theoretical or clinical type. By investigating the effects of TBIs on destination memory, which is a socially oriented memory system, our study paves the way for joint clinical and theoretical investigation of memory functioning in TBI patients.

Destination memory

12

Ethical statement The study has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. All subjects who participated in the study were informed on the details and their role in the study. All subjects signed the informed consent forms.

Destination memory

13

References 1. El Haj M, Miller R. Destination memory: the relationship between memory and social cognition. Psychol Res. 2017. 2. El Haj M, Miller R. The communicative function of destination memory. Behav Brain Sci. 2018;41. 3. Koriat A, Ben-Zur H, Sheffer D. Telling the same story twice: Output monitoring and age. Journal of Memory and Language. 1988;27(1):23-39. 4. El Haj M, Omigie D, Samson S. Destination memory and familiarity: better memory for conversations with Elvis Presley than with unknown people. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2015;27(3):33744. 5. El Haj M, Fasotti L, Allain P. Destination memory for emotional information in older adults. Exp Aging Res. 2015;41(2):204-19. 6. El Haj M, Raffard S, Antoine P, Gely-Nargeot MC. Emotion and Destination Memory in Alzheimer's Disease. Current Alzheimer research. 2015;12(8):796-801. 7. El Haj M, Raffard S, Gely-Nargeot MC. Destination memory and cognitive theory of mind in normal ageing. Memory. 2016;24(4):526-34. 8. El Haj M, Gely-Nargeot MC, Raffard S. Destination Memory and Cognitive Theory of Mind in Alzheimer's Disease. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;48(2):529-36. 9. El Haj M, Kessels RPC. Context Memory in Alzheimer's Disease. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders EXTRA. 2013;3(1):342-50. 10. Cabeza R, Anderson ND, Houle S, Mangels JA, Nyberg L. Age-related differences in neural activity during item and temporal-order memory retrieval: a positron emission tomography study. J Cogn Neurosci. 2000;12(1):197-206. 11. El Haj M, Moroni C, Luyat M, Omigie D, Allain P. To what extent does destination recall induce episodic reliving? Evidence from Alzheimer’s disease. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2014;36(2):127-36. 12. El Haj M, Allain P. Role of context recall in destination memory decline in normal aging. Geriatr Psychol Neuropsychiatr Vieil. 2014;12(4):432-9. 13. El Haj M, Miller R. The communicative function of destination memory. Behav Brain Sci. accepted for publication. 14. Kessels RP, Kopelman MD. Context memory in Korsakoff's syndrome. Neuropsychol Rev. 2012;22(2):117-31. 15. Vakil E. The effect of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) on different aspects of memory: a selective review. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2005;27(8):977-1021. 16. Ries M, Marks W. Heightened false memory: a long-term sequela of severe closed head injury. Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(12):2233-40. 17. Vakil E, Tweedy JR. Memory for Temporal Order and Spatial Position Information: Tests of the Automatic-Effortful Distinction. Cogn Behav Neurol. 1994;7(4):281-8. 18. Levin HS, Goldstein FC. Organization of verbal memory after severe closed-head injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1986;8(6):643-56. 19. Tweedy JR, Vakil E. Evaluating evidence for automaticity in frequency of occurrence judgments: a bias for bias? J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1988;10(5):664-74. 20. Crosson B, Sartor KJ, Jenny AB, Nabors NA, Moberg PJ. Increased intrusions during verbal recall in traumatic and nontraumatic lesions of the temporal lobe. Neuropsychology. 1993;7(2):193-208.

Destination memory

14

21. Vakil E, Blachstein H, Hoofien D. Automatic temporal order judgment: the effect of intentionality of retrieval on closed-head-injured patients. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1991;13(2):291-8. 22. Cooke DL, Kausler DH. Content memory and temporal memory for actions in survivors of traumatic brain injury. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1995;17(1):90-9. 23. Haddad SH, Arabi YM. Critical care management of severe traumatic brain injury in adults. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012;20:12. 24. Saatman KE, Duhaime AC, Bullock R, Maas AI, Valadka A, Manley GT, et al. Classification of traumatic brain injury for targeted therapies. J Neurotrauma. 2008;25(7):719-38. 25. Snodgrass JG, Corwin J. Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: applications to dementia and amnesia. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988;117(1):34-50. 26. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates; 1988. 27. Rosenthal R, DiMatteo MR. Meta-analysis: recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:59-82. 28. Ellis PD. The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: Statistical Power, Meta-Analysis, and the Interpretation of Research Results. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2010. 29. Coste C, Agar N, Petitfour E, Quinette P, Guillery-Girard B, Azouvi P, et al. Exploring the roles of the executive and short-term feature-binding functions in retrieval of retrograde autobiographical memories in severe traumatic brain injury. Cortex. 2011;47(7):771-86. 30. El Haj M, Antoine P, Nandrino JL. When deception influences memory: the implication of theory of mind. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2016:1-8. 31. Haj ME, Saloppe X, Nandrino JL. Destination memory and deception: when I lie to Barack Obama about the moon. Psychol Res. 2017:1-7. 32. El Haj M. Stereotypes Influence Destination Memory In Normal Aging. Exp Aging Res. 2017;43(4):355-66. 33. Bondi CO, Semple BD, Noble-Haeusslein LJ, Osier ND, Carlson SW, Dixon CE, et al. Found in translation: Understanding the biology and behavior of experimental traumatic brain injury. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2015;58:123-46. 34. Yeates KO, Swift E, Taylor HG, Wade SL, Drotar D, Stancin T, et al. Short- and long-term social outcomes following pediatric traumatic brain injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004;10(3):412-26. 35. Bigler ED, Yeates KO, Dennis M, Gerhardt CA, Rubin KH, Stancin T, et al. Neuroimaging and social behavior in children after traumatic brain injury: findings from the Social Outcomes of Brain Injury in Kids (SOBIK) study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;32(4):707-20. 36. Rosema S, Muscara F, Anderson V, Godfrey C, Eren S, Catroppa C. Agreement on and predictors of long-term psychosocial development 16 years post-childhood traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2014;31(10):899-905. 37. Catroppa C, Godfrey C, Rosenfeld JV, Hearps SS, Anderson VA. Functional recovery ten years after pediatric traumatic brain injury: outcomes and predictors. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29(16):2539-47. 38. Chapman LA, Wade SL, Walz NC, Taylor HG, Stancin T, Yeates KO. Clinically significant behavior problems during the initial 18 months following early childhood traumatic brain injury. Rehabil Psychol. 2010;55(1):48-57.

Destination memory

15

39. Ubukata S, Tanemura R, Yoshizumi M, Sugihara G, Murai T, Ueda K. Social cognition and its relationship to functional outcomes in patients with sustained acquired brain injury. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2014;10:2061-8. 40. Kurca E, Sivak S, Kucera P. Impaired cognitive functions in mild traumatic brain injury patients with normal and pathologic magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroradiology. 2006;48(9):661-9. 41. Dikmen SS, Corrigan JD, Levin HS, Machamer J, Stiers W, Weisskopf MG. Cognitive outcome following traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2009;24(6):430-8. 42. Christodoulou C, DeLuca J, Ricker JH, Madigan NK, Bly BM, Lange G, et al. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of working memory impairment after traumatic brain injury. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001;71(2):161-8. 43. McDowell S, Whyte J, D'Esposito M. Working memory impairments in traumatic brain injury: evidence from a dual-task paradigm. Neuropsychologia. 1997;35(10):1341-53. 44. McAllister TW, Flashman LA, Sparling MB, Saykin AJ. Working memory deficits after traumatic brain injury: catecholaminergic mechanisms and prospects for treatment -- a review. Brain Inj. 2004;18(4):331-50. 45. Vallat-Azouvi C, Pradat-Diehl P, Azouvi P. Rehabilitation of the central executive of working memory after severe traumatic brain injury: two single-case studies. Brain Inj. 2009;23(6):585-94. 46. Vallat-Azouvi C, Weber T, Legrand L, Azouvi P. Working memory after severe traumatic brain injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2007;13(5):770-80. 47. Williams WH, Williams JMG, Ghadiali EJ. Autobiographical Memory in Traumatic Brain Injury: Neuropsychological and Mood Predictors of Recall. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 1998;8(1):4360.

Destination memory

Figure 1. Destination memory performances in TBI patients (upper panel) and controls (lower panel)

16

Destination memory

Figure 2. Binding performances in TBI patients (upper panel) and controls (lower panel)

17