Childhood amnesia and distinctions between forms of memory: a comment on Wood, Brown, and Felton.

Recently, Wood and his colleagues (1989) presented a case of childhood amnesia as evidence against the distinction between declarative and procedural memory that has sometimes been applied to human amnesia. Their argument was based on the observation that their patient showed some progress in school over the years, i.e., acquired some declarative knowledge, despite severely impaired day-to-day memory ability. We briefly review their case, together with a carefully studied second case of childhood amnesia not mentioned by Wood et al. Their argument is wrong in several ways. First, the utility of the declarative/procedural distinction for amnesia, or the utility of any other distinction between memory systems, depends on whether or not one kind of memory is impaired selectively, not on the severity of the impairment. In particular there is no requirement that one kind of memory be totally absent. Second, they have not provided the data necessary to support their argument; namely, data showing that the amount of declarative knowledge accumulated during years in school was better than would have been expected given the capacity for moment-to-moment or day-to-day memory. Indeed, the patient's moment-to-moment memory ability is better than represented, and the patient's progress in school was abnormally slow. Third, it is not clear that academic achievement scores provide a direct measure of declarative memory abilities (skill learning and recovery of function may also have contributed). We conclude that the evidence from childhood amnesia is fully consistent with the proposal that amnesia reflects a selective impairment in the formation of long-term declarative memory.