The Elements of Style: A Tribute to Suzanne Corkin

Alice Cronin-Golomb

When Brad Postle invited me to submit a contribution to
this Festschrift for Sue Corkin, I had to mull over what to
present. I knew there would be many scientific papers but
wanted to do something more personal. What I decided
might be meaningful to Sue would be a contribution about
her role in the development of women scientists in her lab.
I know she was very important to me in this respect. I
started with all the women I could think of who had been
in Sueʼs lab around my time, contacted them, and asked
them to help me find others, especially those who came
before and after me. Those who responded are included
here. There are 20 women representing many different
roles in Sueʼs lab: research scientist, undergraduate stu-
dent, graduate student, postdoctoral fellow, secretary, re-
search assistant. Their dates and roles in the lab and
what they are doing now are presented in Table 1. To pro-
vide a little structure but not to constrain their responses
too much, I provided some intentionally vague guiding
questions and left it up to them as to which ones they
wanted to address. My edits have been confined to ex-
plaining abbreviations and special terms [in brackets],
shortening some responses without changing the meaning
(I hope), and offering some grammatical improvements
that I believe Sue would have done herself if sheʼd been
given the opportunity.

Though my name is here as author, I can properly take
credit for only one twentieth of the content of this article.
I am indebted to these many women who took the time
to reminisce in a public forum—the “public” part may not
seem extraordinary until you get to the final entry! Need-
less to say, we are all tremendously indebted to Sue her-
self, in both predictable and surprising ways. We hope
you enjoy the reconstruction of life in the Corkin lab over
the years and its reverberations in our lives to the pre-
sent day.

HOW IS IT THAT YOU CAME TO WORK IN
SUEʼS LAB OR WORK WITH SUE IN SOME
OTHER WAY?
(N. Hebben) I originally came to Sueʼs lab in 1979
through her mentor, Brenda Milner. Fortunately, while

Boston University

I was an intern in neuropsychology at what is now called
the VA Boston Healthcare System (and was previously
the Boston Veterans Administration Hospital) I had the
good fortune to be allowed to test Dr. Milnerʼs patients
for my dissertation, “The Role of the Frontal and Temporal
Lobes in Acoustic and Articulatory Coding of Speech” at
the Montreal Neurological Institute. I was introduced to
Sue through Dr. Milner, and Sue invited me to submit a
grant for a postdoctoral position in her lab, which I happily
did and even more happily was awarded.

(C. Fennema-Notestine) I responded to a posting for a
UROP [Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program]
student to work in her Behavioral Neuroscience Labora-
tory. At that time, I was thinking of focusing my research
on visual information processing, taking classes from Ellen
Hildreth and others. Sueʼs UROP posting on the study of
memory and disorders of memory intrigued me. Once I
met with Sue and the people in her lab, I knew it was a
place I could learn a great deal, from experimental design
and statistical analysis to writing.

( J. Ogden) My Auckland University Ph.D. supervisor,
Professor Mike Corballis, was a friend of Sueʼs. They were
both at McGill together, I think. He used to help her with
her statistics! He recommended me to Sue.

(M. Kjelgaard) As an undergraduate psychology major from
a state school, I didnʼt have a lot of great options for careers.
I knew that I wanted to “go to graduate school,” but coming
from a working class family and the first one in my family
to have a Bachelorʼs degree, I really had no idea what that
meant. I didnʼt really even understand the difference between
experimental and clinical psychology. I learned about neuro-
psychology working in a head injury rehabilitation facility
and instantly knew that was what I wanted to do. In
those days, jobs were posted in the newspaper. I read
the Boston Globe, and one lucky day, I saw a position
for an RA [research assistantship] at MIT in Sueʼs lab,
applied, and got the job!

(H. Mapstone) I got an interview with Sue through a
woman who worked for Sue and also worked weekends
in the same head injury rehabilitation center where I
worked full time. Sue was interested in the whole person.
The questions I remember from the interview: “Do you
play tennis?” and “Are you in love?”

Most excitingly, I remember hearing: “I always like to
give a Smithie [a fellow Smith College graduate] a break.”

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 25:1, pp. 143–155

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

/
j

f
/

t
t

i
t
.

:
/
/

h
t
t
p
:
/
D
/
o
m
w
i
n
t
o
p
a
r
d
c
e
.
d
s
f
i
r
o
l
m
v
e
h
r
c
p
h
a
d
i
i
r
r
e
.
c
c
t
.
o
m
m
/
j
e
d
o
u
c
n
o
/
c
a
n
r
a
t
r
i
t
i
c
c
l
e
e
–
p
–
d
p
d
2
f
5
/
1
2
5
1
/
4
1
3
/
1
1
9
4
4
3
4
/
6
1
0
7
9
7
o
8
c
5
n
2
_
1
a
/
_
j
0
o
0
c
2
n
9
7
_
a
p
_
d
0
0
b
2
y
9
g
7
u
.
e
p
s
t
d
o
f
n
b
0
y
8
S
M
e
I
p
T
e
m
L
i
b
b
e
r
r
a
2
r
0
i
2
3
e
s

/
j

u
s
e
r

o
n

1
7

M
a
y

2
0
2
1

Table 1. Members of the Corkin Lab Who Contributed to this Article

Name

Years in Corkin Lab

Position Then

Current

Sullivan, Edith V. (Edie)

1976–1985

Research Associate/Scientist Research Professor, Department of Psychiatry
and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University
School of Medicine, Stanford, CA

Shedlack, Karen

1979–1982

Research Assistant

Hebben, Nancy

1979–1982

Postdoc

Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, McLean
Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Belmont,
MA and State of Massachusetts Department
of Developmental Services, Weymouth and
Norwood, MA

Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychology,

Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical
School, Boston, MA and Clinical Associate,
McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA

Sauer, Karen

1979–1981

Secretary

Wellesley College Music Department, Wellesley,

MA (retired)

Nissen, Mary Jo

1981–1983

Postdoc

Cancer Epidemiologist, Park Nicollet Institute,

Minneapolis, MN

Keane, Margaret (Maggie)

1984–86; 1986–91 Research Assistant;
Graduate Student

Professor, Wellesley College, Department of

Psychology, Wellesley, MA

Sherman, Janet

1984–1988

Postdoc/Research Scientist
(with M. Garrett, MIT)

Clinical Director, Massachusetts General

Hospital Psychology Assessment Center,
Boston, MA

Schweickert, Janell

1980s

Postdoc

Clinical Psychologist, Wake-Kendall Group,

Ogden, Jenni

1985–1986

Postdoc

Washington, DC

Associate Professor Emerita, Department of

Psychology, University of Auckland,
New Zealand

Cronin-Golomb, Alice

1985–1989

Postdoc

Professor of Psychology, Boston University,

Kjelgaard, Margaret

1986–1988

Research Assistant

Boston, MA

Assistant Professor, MGH Institute of Health
Professions and Director of Psychology,
Clinical Research Center, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

Fennema-Notestine, Christine

1987–1990

Undergraduate Student

Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Radiology,

Mapstone, Heather Clarke

Mendola, Janine

1990–1992

1991–1996

University of California, San Diego, CA

Research Assistant

Attorney, Rochester, NY

Graduate Student

Associate Professor, McGill University, Montreal,

Quebec, Canada

Jennings-Shaw, Peggy

1992–1995

Postdoc/Research Scientist Artist; Freelance Data Analyst/Consultant,

Santa Rosa, CA

Stern, Chantal

Xu, Yaoda

1994–1998

1995–2000

Postdoc (with B. Rosen,
MGH-NMR Center)

Professor of Psychology, Boston University,

Boston, MA

Graduate Student

Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology,

Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Kensinger, Elizabeth

1998–2003

Graduate Student

Associate Professor of Psychology, Boston

College, Chestnut Hill, MA

Steinvorth, Sarah

2000–2002

Postdoc

Cognitive Neuroimaging Lab, Boston University,

Boston, MA

Chung, Christie

2005–2007

Postdoc

Associate Professor of Psychology, Mills College,

Oakland, CA

144

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volume 25, Number 1

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

/
j

f
/

t
t

i
t
.

:
/
/

/
j

u
s
e
r

o
n

1
7

M
a
y

2
0
2
1

(C. Chung) As a student I had always admired Sueʼs work
with H.M. but had never imagined working with someone
like her! When I was searching for postdoc positions, I
was interested in learning more about the brain from the
neuroscience perspective because my Ph.D. training was
primarily in cognitive aging and memory modeling. I met
Sue at SFN [Society for Neuroscience] in 2004 and knew at
that point that she would be a great mentor for my postdoc
training. I was excited to have the opportunity to learn
from her.

(E. Kensinger) During my junior year of college, I
attended one of Sueʼs talks on memory changes in age-
related disease and I visited one of her laboratory meetings.
I was fascinated by the breadth of her research, inspired
by the dynamic discussions that took place during her lab-
oratory meeting, and excited by the prospect of gaining
solid training in both neuropsychology and neuroimaging.
I was therefore thrilled to join Sueʼs laboratory as a gradu-
ate student.

(S. Steinvorth) After finishing my Ph.D. in Germany, my
“doctor mother” encouraged me to go abroad to learn
more. I found out about Sueʼs lab, contacted her, and
she agreed to take me on as a postdoc if I brought my
own funding, which I did by writing up and getting a grant
from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

( J. Mendola) I came to MIT to work with nonhuman
primates but found myself looking for a different environ-
ment during my first year. So, in a way it was simply good
fortune that our paths crossed and I decided that work-
ing with human subjects, but from a neuropsychological/
biological perspective, was the best of both worlds. I also
appreciated that Sue managed her lab effectively as a team.
( Y. Xu) As a grad student, I was on the cognitive neuro-
science track. I was coadvised by Mary Potter (primary)
and Sue (secondary).

(K. Sauer) I came to work in Sueʼs lab because, at the

time, I wasnʼt making enough as a musician.

(M.J. Nissen) In the first 10 years of our two-career
marriage, my husband and I took turns deciding where
we would move next. In 1980 it was his turn, and he se-
lected Boston so that he could do his residency at MGH
[Massachusetts General Hospital]. Boston seemed like a
lovely choice to me, but of course I was faced with the
problem of finding a position there. I started knocking
on doors more or less, and one day met with Richard
Held. He was gracious, said he didnʼt have any positions
available in his lab, but said he thought Sue Corkin did.
And in fact she did, I believe because Edie Sullivan was
just leaving for Geneva, Switzerland. So Sue hired me
as Edieʼs temporary replacement.

(A. Cronin-Golomb) I had finished my degree at
Caltech working with commissurotomy (split-brain) pa-
tients in the lab of Roger Sperry. There were only four such
patients, and I felt the need to broaden my exposure to
other neurological groups when I was looking for a post-
doc. I wrote to the heads of several laboratories. Most said
I could come if I brought my own grant money, but I was a

brand new Ph.D. whoʼd never worked on a grant proposal.
One thing I did know about the grant-writing process was
that the time from submission to funding was at least a
solid year. Sueʼs response to my application was different
from the others. She said, “Come. And youʼll write a grant
proposal to support yourself.” That made all the difference
in the world. It meant that I could start right away, and, as
important to me at that point, it told me that my work was
good enough to merit support; that someone had confi-
dence that I would in fact get a grant, and soon. And
I did—I wrote a postdoc NRSA [National Research Ser-
vice Award] application under Sueʼs guidance, and it was
successful.

( J. Sherman) I was a Sloan Postdoctoral fellow in
Merrill Garrettʼs lab. My interest was in how different
aspects of language processing are impacted by brain
damage resulting from stroke (i.e., patients with aphasia).
Sue generously offered that I could also investigate lan-
guage in AD in her lab—which I did at the CRC [Clinical
Research Center at MIT] and obtained funding from the
ADRDA [Alzheimerʼs Disease and Related Disorders
Association] to support my research.

(E. Sullivan) Chris Darwin was at my doctoral thesis
defense on tactile short-term memory and thought I would
be a good fit with Sue. It happened that within the year,
we moved from Connecticut to the Boston area. I pursued
work with Sue, just when she was pregnant with Damon
and needing a stand-in during her maternity leave.

(C. Stern) I was a postdoc with Bruce Rosen at the MGH-
NMR [Nuclear Magnetic Resonance] Center, which is now
the Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging. I met Sue
through Gil Gonzalez, the head of neuroradiology at
MGH, who was working with John Growdon. We worked
together on the first fMRI study to demonstrate hippo-
campal activity (which came out in 1996), and I worked
on studies with Brad Postle and Chris Moore while they
were both students in Sueʼs lab.

WHAT OPPORTUNITIES DID SUE OFFER
YOU AT THAT TIME THAT YOU THOUGHT
(OR NOW THINK) WERE SPECIAL?

( Y. Xu) I was very fortunate to have had the opportunity
to test the famous patient H.M. while I was working with
Sue. That was such a special and unique experience that
made me really appreciate tremendously the importance
and the hard work that go into testing patients.

(M.J. Nissen) It all turned out so very well! I had been
interested in neuropsychology since college but had not
had the opportunity to be involved in neuropsychological
research. Sue offered the training and opportunities to do
that. One of the things I learned from Sue that has served
me well is the importance of collaborations, including
how to develop and maintain them.

( J. Sherman) The opportunity to look at language in
Alzheimerʼs disease—an area I am still working in—helping
me to establish a lifelong interest in clinical populations

Cronin-Golomb

145

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

/
j

t
t

f
/

i
t
.

:
/
/

/
j

u
s
e
r

o
n

1
7

M
a
y

2
0
2
1

and in particular dementia. She also generously allowed
me to test H.M. on our language studies! A truly unique
opportunity.

(H. Mapstone) All of it! Maybe because I didnʼt go on
in science, I donʼt think about specific opportunities, just
general lessons like work hard, play hard; stay positive;
do not fear conflict; mind your integrity; match your poster
board to your outfit (

(E. Sullivan) My charge was to learn how to do as much
neuropsychological testing—standardized and home
grown—as possible. I did that and introduced many new,
“home-made” tests of different components of memory
and also other tests of contextual memory and processing.
I had the special opportunity to initiate testing of patients
with Alzheimer disease and Parkinson disease. Two unique
opportunities were (1) the 40-year recall of Teuberʼs
World War II veterans and administration of tests we
remade in the likeness of the original 1950s stimuli and,
of course, (2) the testing of H.M.

(C. Stern) Through Sue, I was able to help mentor two
of her graduate students, Chris Moore and Brad Postle, in
fMRI. At the time, the MGH-NMR Center was predomi-
nantly physicists, and the connection to Sue and BCS
[Brain and Cognitive Sciences] allowed me to have more
interaction with neuroscientists including Brad Postle,
Chris Moore, Janine Mendola, and Peg Jennings.

(K. Sauer) Besides typing (and retyping and retyping)
manuscripts on the IBM Selectric (no computers yet!),
I made posters and slides the old fashioned way, with
press-on letters. Everything about working in a science
lab was new to me, but one special opportunity that
Sue offered me was an all-expenses paid trip to Bethesda
to hand deliver a grant application with one hour to spare!
( J. Schweickert) My original reason for studying psy-
chology was my interest in brain processes, and Sue gave
me the opportunity to circle back to neuropsychology
once I had learned a lot about cognition and the research
process. I will be forever grateful for the opportunity to
work with H.M. and to collaborate with Janet Sherman.
Sueʼs connections to MGH allowed me to teach a very
fun class in applied statistics to health professionals.
And the experiences in her lab allowed me to land a job
first as a psychometrist, then as a postdoctoral fellow at
Boston University Hospital, where I started down the path
to clinical practice.

(N. Hebben) I was affiliated with Sueʼs lab to study
pain perception in patients undergoing cingulotomy for
chronic intractable pain or intractable psychiatric dis-
orders. While there, I was also involved in research pro-
jects involving H.M., including an investigation of whether
or not H.M. had impairment in his ability to monitor his
internal states. This was a rather clever study (if I do say
so myself ) in which we served H.M. his dinner twice; the
second time 20 minutes after he had consumed his first
tray. H.M., of course, had no memory that he had already
eaten, and he proceeded to consume all but his salad on
the second tray, saying he did not like salad—not that he

was full. H.M. also underwent my pain perception task and
had an increased tolerance to pain. Remarkably, he left the
heat gun on so long he had 12 quarter size “sunburn-like”
circles of red, six on each arm, and shortly after the study
ended, he went up to a charge nurse at the CRC, asking
how he had gotten the marks on his arms.

(C. Fennema-Notestine) In Sueʼs lab, undergraduates
were provided significant opportunities to learn about
experimental design, human subjects experience, and sta-
tistical analysis (go VAX BMDP!). Of course, one of the
things that got me hooked was being allowed not only to
meet H.M. but to talk with him, test him, and experience
memory impairment “in person” under Sueʼs guidance.
Visual information processing never seemed as boring as
in those moments. Sue was a great teacher and created
an incredible learning environment, attracting individuals
with a variety of strengths but all of whom had similar
approaches to mentorship.

( J. Ogden) I was one year out of my Ph.D. when I arrived
in Boston with my husband, John, and our two youngest
children, aged 9 and 11 (similar ages to Sueʼs children). I
was very excited and very nervous about being found out
as a complete fraud! How would I, from little old back-
woods New Zealand, ever meet the standards of the mighty
MIT! Sue was about to leave for overseas the day after we
arrived, and she had asked us to meet her at the beauty
salon where she was getting her hair, etc., done. My first
sight of her was of her sitting in a chair with her head under
a dryer and her feet on a stool while the beauty therapist
varnished her toenails. The dryer was turned off, and
within minutes of our introductions, after mentioning
she had got me a generous stipend (I had arrived thinking
I might not have any financial assistance), she asked if I had
any particular project I wanted to work on. I was open to
suggestions so she suggested I work on PD [Parkinson
disease] and gave me a great stack of research papers to
read before the next day, and said I should go to Mass
General the next day and sit in on John Growdonʼs
motor disorders clinic. (I knew nothing about PD and, up
until that point, had no inkling that I would work in this
area while at MIT). Sue (of course) lent us her car while
she was away. ( We had arrived from NZ the day before
and were staying in the house of some lovely random
academic I had met briefly at Auckland University two days
before we left: Typical of all the Americans we met, he
spontaneously offered us his house for a few weeks while
he and his family were travelling).

So the most important thing Sue gave me was confi-
dence. She treated me, without hesitation, as an equal.
She believed that I could do whatever I wanted to do.
Everyone in her lab was treated like this, and everyone
treated their peers like this. At the same time, the people
in her lab never doubted she was our leader. In NZ,
neurologists are at the top of the pile, and psychologists
can never be their equal, whatever they achieve and how-
ever little the neurologist achieves. So this belief that we
can all work together, whatever our label, was something

146

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volume 25, Number 1

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

/
j

f
/

t
t

i
t
.

:
/
/

/
j

u
s
e
r

o
n

1
7

M
a
y

2
0
2
1

I carried away with me and hopefully continued in my
own career.

And of course the opportunity to work with H.M. was
amazing and has remained my greatest claim to fame in
the area of neuropsychology! Sue has been very generous
in allowing me to write more personal reminisces about
H.M., including giving me access to the first MRI scan of
his brain (published in my textbook before it was pub-
lished in the journal paper). My latest book, Trouble in
Mind, is dedicated to H.M., but without Sue, I would
never have had that honor.

(M. Kjelgaard) The singular most critical event in my
career was working in Sueʼs lab as a research assistant.
Were it not for that, I would not have had the back-
ground needed to complete a Ph.D. program and then
a career in clinical research. Seeing the example of such
a strong female scientist in the 1980s truly influenced me.
I never questioned whether being a woman would inhibit
my ability to be a scientist.

(C. Chung) Sue allowed me to be in charge of several
projects in the lab. However, ultimately, she encouraged
me to find something that I was passionate about to pur-
sue as a career.

(E. Kensinger) The access to patients was incredible.
Within my first 2 years of graduate school, I had tested
patients with Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, se-
mantic memory deficits, and amnesia. Sue allowed me to
study the topics I was passionate about, fostering my
scientific curiosity. On more than one occasion, I pre-
sented her with an experimental proposal that was un-
related to ongoing research in the lab; she worked with
me to figure out how I could obtain funding for the pro-
jects and fully supported my research in these new areas.
It was because of this freedom that I discovered my inter-
est in emotional memory, a topic that has held my interest
for the past decade.

There were few things that remained “behind the
scenes” in terms of how her laboratory was run. From early
in my graduate career, she involved me in grant writing,
conversations with the IRB [Institutional Review Board],
and discussions of project budgets. This meant that, when
I started my own laboratory, I had a good understanding of
what it would entail to keep it running smoothly.

Sue set a wonderful example for the importance of
teamwork in scientific research. She encouraged collabora-
tion and consultation, both among her laboratory mem-
bers and with others in the field.

(S. Steinvorth) I think the fact that she took me on as a
postdoc without knowing any of my former mentors, com-
ing from a bit of a different background (I had worked as
a clinical neuropsychologist, doing clinical research), and
letting me work with H.M. (I still do not like writing his full
name, somehow) was special.

( J. Mendola) Sue was particularly skilled as a facilitator.
During my time in her lab, she facilitated a great variety
of topics—from memory, of course, to motor skill, to
somatosensation, to phantom pain, to perception and

beyond. Rather than always asking people to fit into rig-
idly defined projects, she had a gift for bringing out the
best in what others wanted to pursue. Despite the fact
that she was a memory researcher first, Sue never shook
the passion for visual perception out of me but allowed
me great freedom to follow my own compass. My thesis
project was truly a collaborative creation. This freedom
combined with the rather rigorous environment at MIT
provided a great preparation for life after grad school.

(A. Cronin-Golomb) What attracted me to Sueʼs lab in
the first place was the high quality of the work, the vari-
ety of neurological patients, and the superb facilities that
Sue had built up over the years. There was also the impres-
sive lineage of neuropsychologists Sue followed from,
people such as Brenda Milner and Hans-Lukas Teuber.
The experience I needed, which Sueʼs lab more than any
other offered, was large numbers of patients with a great
variety of conditions, including Alzheimerʼs disease, global
amnesia, Parkinsonʼs disease, penetrating head injury,
cingulotomy, Huntingtonʼs disease, and others. I spent
4 years there. At every step along the way, Sue offered
me opportunities for research, for presenting my work at
invitation-only scientific meetings, and for networking with
the giants of the field. Early on in my postdoc, when I was
still in awe of the famous names and shy about introducing
myself to them at conferences, Sue would make a point of
bringing me to them or them to me, saying a word about
why we would find each otherʼs work interesting, then
discreetly disappearing so that I could continue on my
own. I have observed other laboratories in which the direc-
tors are not nearly so generous in promoting their trainees,
perhaps trying to keep all credit for themselves. In Sueʼs
lab, the situation was quite the opposite. I still marvel at
this generosity.

An example of an opportunity Sue gave me: She put me
in charge of identifying a new postdoc. She handed me
the pile of applications, asked me to go through them
and help her choose the candidates, had me set up their
visits and talks, and asked for my recommendations at
the end, which she actually followed. I was just a postdoc
myself! She apparently had confidence in my abilities, and
it worked out well for our overall project.

Of course Iʼd be remiss if I didnʼt mention H.M. I was
doing a study of abstract conceptualization in Alzheimer
disease, and H.M. was a control—if you can believe it—
because he was amnesic but maybe OK on conceptualiza-
tion (as in fact he was). I reciprocated for the opportunity
to be part of the H.M. studies by enrolling my mother as
a control for him, as they were born in the same year and
had the same education level. My other contribution was
to drive H.M. to Connecticut or back several times. I was
in constant terror of getting in an accident—of being the
one who killed H.M.! I was maybe also the only person to
actively try to keep his memory from working, I am
ashamed to say. During those drives between CT and
MIT, there was a highway sign for Chicopee Falls, which
would always cue him to say “Chicopee Falls? I had an

Cronin-Golomb

147

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

/
j

t
t

f
/

i
t
.

:
/
/

/
j

u
s
e
r

o
n

1
7

M
a
y

2
0
2
1

aunt in Chicopee Falls!” and Iʼd be listening to the same
story time after time. One time I just couldnʼt bear the
thought of hearing the story again, so when I saw the sign
before he did I yelled, “Henry! Look over there!” and
pointed in the direction opposite the sign so he wouldnʼt
get that cue. I only recently told Sue about that. Fortu-
nately she thought it was funny.

(P. Jennings-Shaw) Perhaps what I really owe to Sue
is that she gave me the opportunities I needed to either
succeed gloriously in academic research or to figure out
that I didnʼt have what it takes and to go do something
else with my life. I did the latter. And I know that Sue bore
some considerable cost to give me the time and space and
resources to figure that out—resources that some other
talented woman scientist might have put to better use.
Sueʼs gamble on me didnʼt pay off for academic research
in cognitive neuroscience, but it did put me in the right
place at the right time with the right talents to spend
nearly 15 years doing human rights work with women liv-
ing in countries in conflict. I hope thereʼs some return on
her investment there.

WHAT SPECIFIC GUIDANCE DID SUE
PROVIDE FOR CAREER ADVANCEMENT?

( J. Mendola)

–A grant is not a contract.
–What can you do for them?
–Let go of the taffy—that is, let go of a conflict.
–How is your paper progressing?
(M. Keane) As a graduate student, I deeply appreciated
Sueʼs confidence in me. Implicit in our interactions was
the message that I had something important to contribute
to the field and that my ideas were worthy of attention
and exploration. Sue never condescended to her graduate
students but treated them as respected collaborators, offer-
ing support and encouragement of many kinds. Beyond
providing intellectual and moral support, Sue is unequalled
in her ability to help her students overcome practical obsta-
cles. Sue does not often encounter professional or practical
impediments that she does not feel equipped to meet and
overcome. She is equally tenacious in addressing problems
that affect her studentsʼ progress.

(J. Schweickert) Sue guided me more by example than
verbal guidance. She also saw value in really knowing clin-
ical as well as research neuropsychology, which helped
me pursue my interests there. Also, having clinical speak-
ers in was helpful to learn what others were doing outside
of research.

(N. Hebben) Sue knew my degree was in clinical psy-
chology, but she tried very hard to retain me in the re-
search end by encouraging me to seek another grant
after my NRSA was due to end. In fact, we drew up plans
for my application for another award while eating at the
Pancake Place in Edinburgh, Scotland, one morning in
September 1981. Unfortunately, I was unable to get addi-
tional funding beyond three years so I moved on to clin-

ical work. I believe Sue valued my clinical training, however,
and while I was in her lab, whenever a “clinical” report de-
tailing and interpreting the research data collected on a
particular patient was needed, Sue had every confidence
that, even though I was fresh out of my internship and
graduate program, I could write these reports. She also
encouraged submitting posters and presentations (and
in those days we used slides and enlarged photos to cre-
ate poster presentations, can you imagine?) to scientific
meetings, and that is how I came to go to Scotland. I have
very fond memories of that trip. I stayed in the halls of
residence (Pollack Halls) at the University of Edinburgh;
saw a Military Tattoo (with Sue and Jocelyn); walked the
Edinburgh city streets; toured the countryside; did a lot of
shopping, including with Sue and Jocelyn; swam nearly
every day at the Royal Commonwealth Pool; attended
meetings and poster sessions; and proudly presented
our data to the scientific community.

(C. Fennema-Notestine) After I worked with Sue,
Maggie (Keane), and John (Gabrieli) for a few years, Sue
was invaluable in discussions of what to do post-B.S. We
discussed many options, from medical school to experi-
mental psychology, as well as research assistantships in
international locations. She offered to make any con-
nections I would need, encouraged my own research on
programs and research mentors, and suggested the im-
portance of getting multiple perspectives. In the end,
she guided me to UCSD (this young woman from the
Midwest, who had studied in Cambridge, had not yet
considered southern California as an option), to meet
Nelson Butters and Larry Squire, top options in the field.
I had a number of options for graduate school (including
Brown, which, I recall, did not accept me as an under-
graduate—thank you Sue and MIT!). I chose UCSD, and
I ended up working closely with Nelson, moving from
one great mentorship to another. I consider myself
incredibly fortunate.

( J. Ogden) Because of my short stint at MIT, while I
was there, I was asked to apply for the Directorship of
the Clinical Psychology program at Auckland University
(having only graduated from it myself two years pre-
viously) and got the job over many much more clinically
experienced applicants. Sue was one of my referees (and
probably the most influential one) and has been a referee
for every major academic promotion and grant I have had
since.

I modeled many aspects of running the Auckland clin-
ical psychology program on the way Sue ran her lab. It
was her other family. The celebrations of everyoneʼs
birthday and other important occasions with those amaz-
ing Italian cakes, the meetings where everyone felt com-
fortable and enthusiastic about getting involved, the
respect everyone had for the viewpoints of others, the
fun we had, the work ethic Sue modeled for us all. Even
after that very first trip she had away just after I arrived,
she included me in the thoughtful presents she bought
everyone in the lab. I still have the leather bookmark with

148

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volume 25, Number 1

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

/
j

t
t

f
/

i
t
.

:
/
/

/
j

u
s
e
r

o
n

1
7

M
a
y

2
0
2
1

my name inscribed in gold on it! Her welcoming and
leaving parties for people in her lab were wonderful. I
was only there for 10 months, yet it felt like a major part
of my academic life.

Many years later, I overheard a male research officer of
my own telling someone that I was like a mother crocodile.
He realized I had heard his comment and somewhat red-
faced explained that a mother crocodile seemed scary (and
was scary if you didnʼt come up to scratch) but if anyone
else so much as thought about putting her babies down,
sheʼd eat them for lunch. I took his comment as a com-
pliment, but I think I inherited this crocodile mother char-
acteristic directly from Sue.

(M. Kjelgaard) Sue was supportive during the applica-
tion to Ph.D. programs and made suggestions. In fact, I
did not know about Northeasternʼs excellent psychology
program at the time. This is where I ended up.

(C. Chung) Sue encouraged me to apply for grants and
fellowships, although it was a big challenge for an inter-
national scholar (U.K. citizenship). I still remember her
working tirelessly with me on my first grant application
as a postdoc and driving me to the post office to send it
off late at night! She also shared her own stories and strug-
gles as a woman researcher/professor and told me many
times to stand up for myself and not let being a woman
stop me from pursuing my career goals. She made me be-
lieve in myself and my ability to excel in academia.

(S. Steinvorth) Sueʼs approach to any of my research
projects was always a thorough one. By discussing every
single aspect, she let me build a deep understanding. Also,
she was always more than happy to introduce me to people
who facilitated ongoing projects.

(Y. Xu) Sue has always been extremely warm, caring, and
supportive. She had always given me freedom to explore
what I was interested in.

(M.J. Nissen) Until I worked in Sueʼs lab, I had never
personally known a female scientist who was raising chil-
dren. I think it goes without saying how important having
such a role model is for women who are in the process of
trying to figure out whether and how it can be done.

(A. Cronin-Golomb) Invitations to meetings, introduc-
tions to important people, discussions about where to
apply for faculty positions and the odds of getting them,
and of course writing endless letters of recommendation—
these are all things that Sue did for me that I loved. One
thing she did that I did not appreciate at the time was
when I was in the early days of my faculty position at
BU, still testing people with Alzheimer disease through
John Growdonʼs Memory Disorders Unit at MGH and
through Sue, and one day Sue told me that I shouldnʼt
keep drawing from their patients—that I needed to get
my own source. Here I thought it had been a great
arrangement, but Sue was right. My odds of getting tenure
would be lower if I couldnʼt demonstrate that I was really
independent and not relying on my postdoc mentors to
accomplish my current research. It took a lot of work,
but I managed to develop the new contacts needed to

provide a fresh source of research participants, and that
has served me well ever since. You do eventually have
to leave the nest.

(E. Sullivan) Sue handed out a copy of Strunk and
White to each of us. I took it seriously and still live by it.
Just ask the folks in my lab! Evidence of its continued influ-
ence, one of my dear friends and colleague gave me the
50th anniversary edition of The Elements of Style (2010)
for Christmas. In addition to learning how to write directly
and succinctly, Sue taught me how to take criticism—at
face value—and to acknowledge and take advantage of it.
(C. Stern) My children were born in 1994 and 1996.
My papers with Sue span the years 1996–2000. I think
the fact that you canʼt find a gap in my publications dur-
ing that time period was due to Sueʼs persistence.

(H. Mapstone) Sue provided a model of success that
I had never seen up close before. I think it is so important
for young women to know what is possible and how it is
possible. Alice, you probably know better than I the story
about breastfeeding the baby in the file room during the
site visit? How she would always take a call from her kids
no matter what she was doing. How she sent her dogs to
the kennel in a taxicab when she had a trip. Taking her
secretary along to the manicures or hair appointments
or whatever they were. Once I heard someone ask her
“how she did it,” and she said that she was very tired for
many years, but so what, being tired was not a character
flaw. Those are the things that stick with me. Like the old
saying that you go to the mentor to learn how she ties her
shoelaces. She was like that to me.

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF SUE BEING
ESPECIALLY INTERESTED IN ADVANCING
WOMEN IN SCIENCE IN GENERAL?

(M. Keane) From the time I decided to pursue a career in
research and teaching, Sueʼs support has been unfailing
and invaluable. I believe that because of her own experi-
ence, Sue has insight into the particular difficulties and
struggles of pursuing an academic career as a woman. As
my advisor, Sue had an ability to identify and speak to
those struggles, even though I myself was not always able
to voice them explicitly. Furthermore, Sue has the rare
quality of knowing how to offer guidance to her students
without compromising their intellectual independence.
She always gave me the freedom to pursue research ideas
independently and encouraged me to think of myself as
a capable and independent scientist.

( J. Schweickert) Just how she conducted herself daily.
She gathered many capable women around her and her
lab was large and loyal. Although I was more of a “fringe”
member of the lab, I was always made to feel welcome.
(E. Sullivan) Numbers of successful women emerging
from Sueʼs lab is a more relevant metric than enumerating
purposeful policy.

(C. Stern) I think she just pushed everyone equally

hard….

Cronin-Golomb

149

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

/
j

t
t

f
/

i
t
.

:
/
/

/
j

u
s
e
r

o
n

1
7

M
a
y

2
0
2
1

(N. Hebben) I have no specific evidence for Sue being
especially interested in advancing women in science,
but as I look back on my experiences in her lab, I realize
that it was primarily women in the lab and I imagine it
was that way because she wanted to promote women
in science. While I was there, Edie Sullivan was there of
course, but so was Karen Shedlack (who, incidentally, I
later worked with at McLean) and Mary Jo Nissen, and
many of the secretaries and research assistants were also
women: Rae Ann Clegg, Karen Sauer (who would occasion-
ally play piano at Sueʼs parties), and others whose names
have escaped me.

(C. Fennema-Notestine) As an undergraduate, I would
say that the most obvious evidence was the diversity of
her laboratory students, fellows, and staff and the same
level of expectations she had from all of us. I did not
know this at the time, but in retrospect, talking with col-
leagues and observing other experiences, the lack of
bias of any sort was an incredible boon to my confidence.
She always expected that of course we could do what
we were doing well, but we could always do more and
do it better.

(J. Ogden) The number of women in Sueʼs lab was im-
pressive. My feeling is that Sue treated everyone equally,
women and men, and that it was what they contributed
that was important. However, on one of those occasions
when everyone was expected to come into the lab on
Saturday and Sunday to work on an urgent grant appli-
cation and I told Sue that John and I had decided that
for our 10 months in Boston we would spend every
weekend doing family things with our two young chil-
dren, with no exceptions, she was very understanding
and respectful of this. Her dedication to her own chil-
dren (and dogs) above all else, yet her ability to run
her lab so brilliantly and successfully gave us women
who worked with her the model and confidence to do
likewise.

(H. Mapstone) I think primarily by being honest and
open about her challenges and how she managed and
by not trying to be like a man. She came out and said
she was giving me a break because I was a Smithie, so
that was one. I know more recently she fought for pay
parity for female faculty at MIT.

(C. Chung) Sue shared a lot about her own experi-
ences as a woman in science. She may not think these
stories would change someoneʼs life, but they have really
helped me understand social dynamics in the academic
world.

(S. Steinvorth) I think in a way she is/was setting
her own example. Sue has an enormous perseverance
and work ethic paired with a simultaneous ability to
enjoy life that I—now a mother of two—realize are
really relevant.

( Y. Xu) I think Sue being who she is has always
attracted a lot of women scientists to work in her lab.
The way she ran her lab just made everyone feel comfort-
able working in her lab.

(A. Cronin-Golomb) One thing that struck me when I
first attended lab meetings at MIT (of all the male-dominated
places) was that there were a lot of women there, and
they were the ones in charge—from Sue, as head of the
lab, to the psychiatrist, to one of the neurologists, two
postdocs, graduate and undergraduate students, research
assistants—it was an impressive sight. I perceived that
Sue, an alumna of Smith College, felt very strongly about
promoting the careers of women in science. She didnʼt just
talk the talk—she walked the walk. Not only that, but she
acted like a human being. I almost fell off my chair when
she said “good morning” as she passed my office in the
morning soon after I arrived at MIT. I know that sounds
extreme, but it was a noticeably more humane environ-
ment than Iʼd been in before. And of course Sue had three
kids she adored (not to mention the taxicab-riding dogs),
and she made it clear that if one of the kids called she was
picking up the phone, even in the middle of a meeting. At
that time women got the message that you had to com-
pletely separate your work life from your home life or
you wouldnʼt be taken seriously, but Sue was definitely
taken seriously. This told me that sometimes you donʼt
have to play by rules that you didnʼt make and that
thereʼs more than one way to be a scientist. I hope my
three kids feel the work-home balance has been OK for
them, too.

(K. Sauer) I must admit that I never thought of Sue as a
“woman scientist,” although I realize now that female PIs
[Principal Investigators] at MIT were probably scarce at
the time. Clueless as I was, it didnʼt occur to me that her
success as a scientist (while raising young children) was
anything special at all. Now that I have juggled career and
child-rearing myself, I think—whoa!

Having said that, I must add that to me, Sue had a fem-
ininity that went very deep (much deeper than her always
fashionable appearance and her willingness to schmooze
with the staff ). She looked at you, not through you.

( J. Mendola) I still remember the first meeting I had
with Sue regarding the idea that I would join her lab as
a graduate student. We discussed a few projects, and one
in particular that she suggested. She told me that this
project was promising and only needed a good student
like myself to “take it under her wing.” That simple phrase
touched me, in part because the use of the female pro-
noun was mindful on her part and I knew it. It also dem-
onstrated her ability to appreciate that I was anxious to
prove myself and looking for work that I could take own-
ership of, indeed “a room of my own.”

ANY MORE PERSONAL OR SOCIAL
INTERACTIONS OF NOTE: SHARED BOOKS,
LAB PARTIES, CONFERENCES OR OTHER
TRAVEL, OTHER SOCIAL EVENTS?

(M. Keane) Sue has always been remarkably generous
with her lab and has a great sense of fun and celebration.
Who can forget the holiday parties in the North End,

150

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volume 25, Number 1

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

/
j

f
/

t
t

i
t
.

:
/
/

/
j

u
s
e
r

o
n

1
7

M
a
y

2
0
2
1

where a sumptuous feast was accompanied by a reading of
limericks individually composed by Sue for each member
of the lab?

(E. Kensinger) A personal highlight for me was a lovely
engagement party that Sue hosted at her home; although
I had only been in her laboratory for a short time at the
time of the party, she made my fiancé and me feel like
family. I also have a very fond memory of Sueʼs atten-
dance at my wedding, where she surprised me by reading
a limerick she had written at the reception.

(J. Schweickert) Again, just being included in a lab that
had a “social life” was really nice. Sueʼs holiday parties were
always a highlight! I still have a Christmas ornament of a
Santa in a hot air balloon to represent the “hot air” of talk
in the psycholinguistics experiments that Janet and I were
doing.

(N. Hebben) One of the bonuses of being a member of
Sueʼs lab was that she viewed all members as part of her
team and she frequently “guested” the team at her home
during the holidays or her cottage during the summer.
There were picnics too. The focus at these events was re-
laxing and having fun. At the cottage, we would all swim
out to the raft to lounge there in the sun, and we would
sit by a bonfire late into the night. I recall on one night
how the universe treated us to a spectacular show of the
Northern Lights. At Sueʼs house, weʼd always have our fill
of good food, but I especially remember that she always
served scallops wrapped in bacon.

(M. Kjelgaard) I remember that Sue opened her home
to the lab, for parties, took us to lunch fairly regularly,
and would tell us about her career. I also find myself
integrating a personal side to the mentor relationship. I
remember that she always bought us gifts when she
went somewhere exotic on a trip, and I do the same. I
loved getting little things from all over the world.

(C. Chung) My first Thanksgiving in Boston was spent
with Sue and her family. I am forever thankful to Sue for
her openness, love, and care.

( J. Mendola) There was always fun to be had at weekly
lab meetings. I think I remember that one lab meeting
was a picnic in the Boston Common. Sue always appre-
ciated my love of art, design, and fashion. It was pure fun
to mention if the color of a planned outfit would match
the color scheme of an upcoming poster presentation! I
remember shopping with her in Montreal for original art
to adorn the walls of her then new waterfront condo in
Boston. Her generosity also went so far as to include me
(seemingly effortlessly) in her holiday plans when I could
not make it home to visit my own family.
( Y. Xu) Sue always takes care of you.

There was not
a single birthday cake that we had in our lab meetings
that was not delicious. And the parties at Sueʼs house
were always fabulous.

(A. Cronin-Golomb) It was a lab where people read
real books! I remember that Maggie Keane and Sue and
I all read Jill Ker Conwayʼs The Road from Coorain. A
vivid, more social memory is of Sue inviting me to pre-

sent at the International Neuropsychological Symposium
in 1990 in Nafplio, Greece. I drank ouzo and schmoozed
with Nelson Butters, watched Laird Cermak frolic in the
pool with his kids, and went shopping with Sue, Leslie
Ungerleider, Jerre Levy, Lynn Cooper, and others (I hope
Iʼm remembering the cast of characters correctly…). A
bunch of them bought drapey Greek dresses and were
totally generous with compliments to each other and
with ideas of who looked most like Athena (it was Lynn
Cooper). I learned from Leslie Ungerleider that you buy a
straw hat whenever you arrive at a hot destination and
you toss it before you leave, because it will never survive
the trip uncrushed. I filed this nugget along with the im-
portant information that Sue relayed from Brenda Milner
about packing your conference clothes individually in dry
cleaning bags before you put them in a suitcase because
then they wonʼt wrinkle. Another great time was when
Sue hosted a farewell party for John Gabrieli at her
house: formal attire—the gentlemen in tuxes, ladies
dressed to the nines. Most personally to me, Sue had
planned a secret baby shower for the arrival of our first
child, but the baby arrived before the shower—so it be-
came a postpartum celebration. Sue was endlessly inven-
tive with her parties.

( J. Sherman) I recall a wonderful boat ride on the
Charles to celebrate John Growdonʼs birthday; a really
fun party at her home in Concord and lots and lots and
lots of birthdays celebrated in her lab! Even years after
leaving MIT, Sue would always deliver a bottle of wine
to my office at MGH for a holiday gift. Her thoughtfulness
is unsurpassed.

(C. Stern) Sue and I both went to McGill, and so we
liked reminiscing about McGill, Montreal, and the MNI
[Montreal Neurological Institute]. Of course I also re-
member the Christmas lunches with fondness, as well
as the SFN reunion dinners.

(S. Steinvorth) 9/11 happened while I was in Sueʼs lab.
At that time I was working with a student from whom I
learned that a lot of teachers did not show up to their
classes due to the confusion caused by the events. This,
of course, was not very helpful for the students. Sue,
however, did go to her classes during this time, specifi-
cally to be there for the students, and help where she
could. She was standing out by being there for others
in this situation.

( J. Ogden) Sue was the main invited speaker at a mem-
ory conference in Queenstown, NZ, many years ago. Her
talk was to open the evening session, but she had gone
on a bus trip that day and the bus had got held up in a
snow storm. The organizers waited until the last minute
and then asked me (I was the next speaker) to put my
slides in the carousel and start my talk first. I had just
begun and was onto about my third slide when Sue
burst through the door still dressed in her padded ski
gear and says, “Iʼm here! Move over Jenni, Iʼm on first!”
So I did of course. Fifteen years later, she was still my
leader….

Cronin-Golomb

151

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

/
j

t
t

f
/

i
t
.

:
/
/

/
j

u
s
e
r

o
n

1
7

M
a
y

2
0
2
1

ANYTHING YOU FIND YOURSELF DOING
NOW THAT YOU KNOW WAS DIRECTLY
RELATED TO SUEʼS INFLUENCE
(E.G., GRAMMAR USAGE: CAN
NEVER SUPPRESS IT)?

(C. Chung) Yes! I now make my students do them too .
For example, I have to make sure titles of graphs sum-
marize the general findings. Titles of paragraphs on posters
or presentations can only break at meaningful places.
I stopped saying “so” a hundred million times during
presentations.

(M. Keane) Sue provided voluminous feedback on
written work. I still have the first draft of my first manu-
script, covered in Sueʼs comments. Her feedback always
made my writing clearer and crisper and forced me to
think more carefully about my arguments. I know that I
am a better writer because of Sueʼs influence. I often hear
Sueʼs voice as I comment on my own studentsʼ work. She
modeled for me how to provide challenging critiques in a
context of support and affirmation. I learned from Sue
how important it is to instill confidence in students,
and I carry that lesson with me in all of my interactions
with my own students.

( J. Schweickert) I think of Sue whenever I write a re-
port or a paper (so this is a daily occurrence!) and I have
taught the phrase “which hunting” to many people,
although my husband believes I am too zealous in my
approach. I will also always be grateful to Sue for explain-
ing the origins of the word “snafu” and why it was not
appropriate for me to use in a paper I was presenting for
publication. Sue made it clear that her hand ruled when
she edited papers, and I think that firm boundaries can
be helpful, even if they are not always pleasant! I now tell
my supervisees that they just have to adapt to my style of
writing, using Sueʼs example of a firm boundary, and they
all do!

[“Which hunting,” a pun on “witch hunting,” refers
to checking to make sure you didnʼt use “which”
(the word that introduces a nonrestrictive clause)
when you meant the word “that” (the word that
introduces a restrictive clause). Note the differences
between these sentences: “The hippocampus which
is very small can be seen in Figure 3” and “The
hippocampus that is very small can be seen in
Figure 3.” The first sentence can be read with
commas: “The hippocampus, which is very small,
can be seen in Figure 3.” This sentence may lead
the reader to believe that any hippocampus is very
small—itʼs just in the nature of hippocampi to be
very small. The second sentence specifies that this
particular hippocampus—the one in Figure 3—is
very small. If you find this explanation difficult to
follow, you can look up “which and that” on the
Internet and get lots more examples or read your
copy of Strunk and White].

(N. Hebben) Sueʼs influence? Whatʼd you expect, of
course—she influenced me as a scientist, an influence
that shows even in my clinical work now, and she mod-
eled in her behavior as a scientist and a mother how it
was possible to be a professional woman while raising
children. It was not until I had children of my own that
I truly appreciated how well she managed the balancing
act of work and family. Sue also greatly contributed to my
determination to stay involved in research, publishing
and teaching, despite my primarily being a clinician since
leaving her lab.

She also influenced me, however, in other more sub-
tle ways. You mentioned grammar. Well, because of Sue
I became acquainted with Strunk and White. I still have
the copy of The Elements of Style, Sue gave me on Janu-
ary 6, 1980. How do I know the date so specifically? I only
had to read Sueʼs dedication. Both my sons used it as
a guide in high school, and one of my sons has perma-
nently co-opted it for his extensive library. We used IBM
Selectric typewriters and correction tapes back when I
worked in Sueʼs lab, so before computers became ubiqui-
tous, Sue was the original spell checker. I was always a
fairly good speller, but I still remember Sue catching
me out on the word questionnaire, which I repeatedly
spelled with only one “n.” Also, speaking of “which,” it
was Sue who taught me there was a difference between
“which” and “that,” not that I can honestly say I always use
the two correctly. It was also Sue who taught me you put
the period inside the quotation mark at the end of a sen-
tence, not outside the quotation mark. That has become
my own pet peeve with transcribers. Funny the things one
remembers, and theyʼre not always directly related to
science. I still recall Sue telling me that one way to get a
mark off material is to rub the material against itself. It is
advice that has nothing to do with our work, but it is a
clear example of how Sue was willing to share her exper-
tise and help her team with even those seemingly un-
important details.

( J. Ogden) Giving tough feedback on writing and par-
ticularly seminars. Those practice runs before we gave a
seminar! My first experience of this was when I was due
to go to the Montreal Neurological Institute to give a
seminar and where Brenda Milner would be in the audi-
ence. My practice run was the afternoon before an early
morning flight. The 45-minute talk I had prepared took
about 3 hours to get through because of the constant
interruptions from Sue and the many others in the lab
who were there. In those days we had slides and no
powerpoint, and Sue told me to redo one or two slides
(I canʼt remember how I achieved this in the time I had!)
(As an amusing aside, T. John Rosen told me I was too
stiff and needed to loosen up, wave my arms about
more.) By the time I was through, I was an absolute
wreck and thought that the entire talk was a disaster.
Sue had to go ten minutes before everyone had finished
their questions and critiques, and as she strode out the
door she turned and said, “Great talk, one of the best

152

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volume 25, Number 1

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

/
j

f
/

t
t

i
t
.

:
/
/

/
j

u
s
e
r

o
n

1
7

M
a
y

2
0
2
1

Iʼve heard,” and disappeared! The next day, the talk went
swimmingly, and even Brenda seemed to enjoy it. From
this I learnt that students need hard critique from their
mentors and peers: Once they have learned to cope with
that, the never-ending critique and rejections they will
receive throughout their publishing careers will be water
off a duckʼs back.

(E. Kensinger) I still consult my Strunk and White on

occasion!

(S. Steinvorth) I think she influenced how I write, not
only related to grammar use but also how the “flow” of
a paper is.

( Y. Xu) To be perfect in your presentation.
( J. Mendola) I go “which hunting,” am very aware that
data are plural, and hardly ever use the world “involve.”
I know that my ability to hit the ground running in terms
of writing grant applications after graduate school was
directly related to her excellent grantsmanship and her
generosity in including students.

(A. Cronin-Golomb) Everything everyone has said
above—“which” and “that,” no “involve” (a weasel word),
plural data, etc. At a meeting of the Massachusetts Neu-
ropsychological Society (possibly the occasion on which
they honored Sue), she and Edith Kaplan got into a dis-
cussion about starting a sentence with “however.” They
agreed it shouldnʼt be done and informed the audience
of that decision. Sue also taught me that you should take
any opportunity to edit papers, not just when you have
time (because you never have time). Donʼt tell the state
police, but she used to have a manuscript propped
against her steering wheel (of the car with the Deadhead
sticker), red pen in hand, to edit during red lights. I use
a red pen. My students past and present live in fear of it.
I tell them that everything I know about editing I got
from Sue and donʼt try to make me change.

( J. Sherman) Yup—Iʼm a relentless editor of my post-
doc and internsʼ clinical reports…. I remember Sueʼs
careful editing of a grant I submitted to MGH. She called
me on a Sunday to tell me that my grant needed lots of
work—I was so relieved when I came in and found that
her edits were primarily grammatical! I came to appre-
ciate her insistence for clarity in writing and now pass this
along to my trainees.

(E. Sullivan) I live by my pink editing pen.

OPEN TIME—ANY COMMENTS AT ALL THAT
YOUʼD LIKE TO MAKE ON ANY TOPIC

(H. Mapstone) Sue taught me one of the most important
lessons of my career. I was a year out of undergrad, work-
ing for her as a research assistant. One of her very ambi-
tious goals was not on track. Getting it on track required
the contributions of a lot of people, really all of them
senior to and busier than me. She sat me down and
described to me what was supposed to happen and
how the efforts of all of these other people needed to
be realigned in order for it to happen. Finally I got frus-

trated. These people worked for her, not for me. I had no
formal authority and little influence. I said to her, “What
do you expect me to do about this?” She said to me,
“I expect you to make it happen.” First I thought, “Thatʼs

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

/
j

f
/

t
t

i
t
.

:
/
/

/
j

u
s
e
r

o
n

1
7

M
a
y

2
0
2
1

Figure 1. Photos from three decades of Corkin lab events. Top photo:
Edinburgh, Scotland, World Congress on Pain, 1981. Left: Nancy
Hebben. Right: Jocelyn and Sue Corkin. Photo courtesy of Nancy
Hebben. Center photo: MIT graduation, 1996. From left: Mark Snow
(programmer), Mark Mapstone (research assistant), Janine Mendola
(the new Ph.D.), Sue Corkin, and Kristin Hood (research assistant).
Photo courtesy of Janine Mendola. Bottom photo: Opening of the
new Brain and Cognitive Sciences Building at MIT, 2005. From left:
Christie Chung, David Ziegler (graduate student), Dr. Brenda Milner,
Emily Connally (lab manager), and Sue Corkin. Photo courtesy of
Christie Chung.

Cronin-Golomb

153

not my job,” then I realized, “That is precisely my job.”
Making it happen is always the job. Iʼm grateful to Sue
that I learned that early in my professional life.

(E. Sullivan) Sue is fearless—one of the most useful
and enabling characteristics that a mentor and leader could
confer on professional offspring.

(C. Chung) Sue has been an inspiration in my life. She is
the most direct and honest advisor I have had in my aca-
demic career. Without her, I would not be the researcher/
professor I am now. I have been able to achieve early ten-
ure at Mills College mostly because I quickly implemented
the research strategies at Mills College that Sue encouraged
me to adapt at MIT. While at Sueʼs lab, I started examining
a topic that has now become my main area of research—
positivity effect in old age. I received an APA postdoctoral
research award and have pursued this line of research
ever since.

(N. Hebben) Please feel free to share with Sue the
photos I am sending you. Of the photos, three are of a
picnic the lab had (one of which features John Gabrieli,
who has returned to MIT where he has a lab of his own,
and where one of my sons worked last summer while on
summer break from Reed College) and the rest of the
photos were taken in Edinburgh, Scotland in September
1981 when Sue and I and her daughter Jocelyn traveled
there for the Third World Congress on Pain and where
I presented a poster detailing my research in Sueʼs lab
(Figure 1).

(S. Steinvorth) At some level, I cannot believe that
Sue is retiring. I thought she would work forever. I know
that at some time she was playing with the thought of
opening a cafe/restaurant as she enjoys cooking. So,
maybe, hopefully, we can all meet at some time at her
cafe?

(K. Sauer) Sue was uncompromising and seemed to me
to be working and living life on her own terms. Admirable!
Donʼt get me wrong—uncompromising can also be tough
to take and sometimes she made me furious. But she didnʼt
even flinch when I threw a bunch of keys across the room
in a frustrated moment. My message to Sue: I wasnʼt aim-
ing at you.

(A. Cronin-Golomb) I never thought I would see Sue
retire, but the evidence of it is in my office at BU—boxes
and boxes of neuropsychological tests and books that I
have inherited! If youʼre reading this and could use an
old WAIS or WMS or more obscure assessment tool, just
let me know.

AND FINALLY, THE BEST STORY SUBMITTED
FOR THIS ARTICLE, FROM KAREN SHEDLACK

After graduating from Wellesley College, I spent several
years as a research technician at MIT while trying to figure
out what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. I came
to Sueʼs lab from the Chorover lab when I decided that
I wanted to move from animal learning to gaining some
experience in human neuropsychology. And I can truly

say that the experience I received in Sueʼs lab in terms
not only of science and career development but also in
terms of Sueʼs mentorship and our lasting personal
friendship have been invaluable to me throughout my
life.

So, in special gratitude for the many very important
lessons I learned from you, Dr. Suzanne Corkin, Iʼd
like to share a never-before-publically revealed sci-
ence story, the moral of which is “all in the name of
science….”

In 1980, when I mentioned that my boyfriend was
going to do a sabbatical in NYC during the Fall semes-
ter, Sue immediately jumped on the idea that, by send-
ing me along to New York, this would provide a way
to accomplish some much-needed follow-up testing
on Dr. Teuberʼs WW II veterans who were becoming
too frail to continue travelling to MIT for testing. So
Howard [Eichenbaum] and I set about illegally sublet-
ting an apartment on the upper east side of Manhattan
and packing Sueʼs station wagon full of neuropsych
testing materials to set up the MIT-in-NYC satellite lab.
Meanwhile, the other technicians and I spent months
scheduling the veterans such that there would be at
least one full day of testing for each and sometimes
two days for those who would need a slower pace. In
true Corkin lab fashion, no days were to be wasted.
The subjects were scheduled back-to-back for the entire
fall. Testing materials and data sheets were duplicated,
the schedules were set, and off we went.

Upon arrival, much to the curiosity of the doormen,
we laboriously carried lots and lots of odd-looking cog-
nitive, sensory, motor, etc., etc., equipment up to our
new combination living quarters and lab space in the
illegal sublet. Shortly thereafter, we began our daily
routine of Howard leaving each AM for his project at
Downstate Medical Center, while I dressed in my pro-
fessional, neuropsychologist attire and awaited the ar-
rival of the subjects for their testing. One by one, the
elderly and usually physically impaired, head-injured
men would arrive by cab, ring the buzzer, and I would
come down to greet them and escort them upstairs to
the apartment for the morning testing session. I would
then leave the apartment at noon to escort the men out
to lunch, return within the hour and then go upstairs
for the afternoon testing session after which I would
escort them back downstairs to hail a cab to home.
Shortly afterwards, Howard would arrive home for the
evening, and then the next day the whole schedule
would start all over again. It was perfect. Everything
was working out just as we had planned, until one
day when…we received a cease-and-desist letter from
the landlordʼs attorney stating that we were being
evicted for running a prostitution business in the
building!

Oh my—just imagine that version of what the door-
men were witnessing each and every day…. So, also
in true Dr. Suzanne Corkin fashion, we actually wrote

154

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volume 25, Number 1

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

/
j

f
/

t
t

i
t
.

:
/
/

/
j

u
s
e
r

o
n

1
7

M
a
y

2
0
2
1

a letter back to the attorney stating that we werenʼt
involved in prostitution and thereby not violating our
illegal sublet nonlease but were instead running an
important scientific experiment!! It worked. As we
were nearly at the end of our sojourn at MIT-in-NYC,
a few more rounds of letters went back and forth
over the next several weeks after which we finished
up, packed up, and moved out—all in the name of
science.

Reprint requests should be sent to Alice Cronin-Golomb,
Department of Psychology, Boston University, 648 Beacon
St., 2nd floor, Boston, MA 02215, or via e-mail: alicecg@
bu.edu.

REFERENCES

Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (2010). The elements of style (50th

Anniversary ed.). New York: Pearson/Longman.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

/
j

t
t

f
/

i
t
.

:
/
/

/
j

u
s
e
r

o
n

1
7

M
a
y

2
0
2
1

Cronin-Golomb

155 The Elements of Style: A Tribute to Suzanne Corkin image

Download pdf