Se of correct names, H.M.’s clichuse suggests a compensation approach that relies on intact retrieval mechanisms: By retrieving familiar (but free-associative) phrases and propositions, H.M. could achieve neighborhood coherence, regardless of the globally incoherent CC violations that accompanied his attempts to create novel phrases, propositions and sentences employing his impaired encoding mechanisms. 7.three.4. Repetition-Based Compensation Techniques Past and present final results indicate that relative to controls, H.M. overused 4 forms of repetition that differed in surface type but reflected attempts to overcome his issues in forming novel phrase- and proposition-level internal representations. 7.3.4.1. Elaborative Repetitions By hypothesis, H.M. PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21339327 was in a position to offset his inability to kind novel phrase- and proposition-level plans around the TLC (Study 2C) and in conversational discourse [22] by producing a familiar word or phrase and after that repeating it with elaboration. This hypothesis and its supporting data call for refinement in the enormous repetition principle discussed in 1.1 and [60,158]. Beneath this massive repetition principle, amnesics exhibit a basic tendency to repeat and call for enormous repetition to form novel internal representations. Nevertheless, three Study 2 final results undermine these assumptions: (a) H.M. developed no extra stutters and unmodified word string repetitions than controls around the TLC, ruling out a general tendency to repeat; (b) he needed only a single or two elaborative repetitions rather than massive repetition to type phrase- and sentence-level plans on the TLC; and (c) his elaborative repetitions didn’t merely repeat; they elaborated. Probably definitely huge repetition is only needed when somewhat permanent conjunctions are needed, as in finding out an unfamiliar ability (see [23]), or arbitrary conjunctions involving unrelated categories of units are required, as in classical conditioning. Even so, very couple of repetitions might suffice in sentence organizing simply because (a) sentence plans are reasonably impermanent, built to final no longer than the sentence getting made, and (b) H.M.’s intact syntactic retrieval mechanisms determined what forms of units to conjoin.Brain Sci. 2013, 3 7.3.four.two. Stimulus Rephrasing RepetitionsH.M. developed two kinds of stimulus rephrasing repetitions in [22] when detecting and describing the two meanings of ambiguous sentences like The stout major’s wife stayed household (exactly where either the main is stout or his wife is stout). Very first, when the experimenter explained a second which means that H.M. had failed to detect in an ambiguous sentence, H.M. (unlike the controls) normally repeated with rephrasing the last couple of words of her explanation. For instance, when describing a second get ITSA-1 meaning in the ambiguous sentence Those who play chess also as Bill came, the experimenter concluded using the words “as fantastic as Bill is, came”, which H.M. repeated with rephrasing: “as Bill is, they came”. Like elaborative repetitions, 
such “echoing” with elaboration seems to reflect an attempt to type phrase- and proposition-level internal representations for interpretations that H.M. had failed to uncover on his own. Second, when describing the two meanings in ambiguous sentences, H.M. repeated the ambiguous words themselves reliably much more generally than the controls, frequently repeating them lots of instances inside a single response. For instance, when attempting to describe the meanings of Mary and I authorized of his cooking, H.M. repeated the ambiguous words.
