this article should be addressed to Marvin M. Chun, Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37203. E-mail: marvin.chun@vanderbilt.edu Journal of Experimental Psychology: Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2003, Vol. 29, No. 2, 224--234 0278-7393/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.2.224 224 display was defined by a unique configuration of multiple item locations, and participants had to associate different configurations with different embedded target locations (Cohen & Eichenbaum, 1993; Eichenbaum, 1992; Rudy & Sutherland, 1994). The memory traces for spatial context were specific enough to discriminate one context from another (Logan, 1988)

This paper reviews research examining the role of visual memory in scene perception and visual search. Recent theories in these literatures have held that coherent object representations in visual memory are fleeting, disintegrating upon the withdrawal of attention from an object. I discuss evidence demonstrating that, far from being transient, visual memory supports the accumulation of information from scores of individual objects in scenes, utilizing both visual short-term memory and visual long-term memory. In addition, I review evidence that memory for the spatial layout of a scene and memory for specific object positions can efficiently guide search within natural scenes. In the past decade, the interaction between perception and memory has received a great deal of attention from cognitive scientists. Much of this interest has originated from increased understanding that perception is a dynamic, serial process, extended over space and time. In this paper, I will discuss two related lines of research in which the relationship between perception and memory has come to the fore: Scene perception and visual

this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of the Army or any other governmental organization. Reference to or citations of trade or corporate names does not constitute explicit or implied endorsement of those entities or their products by the author or the Department of the Army). Monica Castelhano was supported by an IGERT graduate traineeship from the National Science Foundation (DGE-0114378). We thank Peter De Graef, Keith Rayner, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Correspondence should be addressed to John M. Henderson, 227 Psychology Research Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 488241117, USA (e-mail: john@eyelab.msu.edu)

In two experiments, we tested the hypothesis that medial temporal lobe (MTL) amnesic patients and, likewise, diencephalic (DNC) amnesic patients evidence a disproportionate deficit in memory for associations in comparison with memory for single items. In Experiment 1, we equated item recognition in amnesic and control participants and found that, under these conditions, associative recognition remained impaired both for MTL patients and for DNC patients. To rule out an alternative interpretation of the results of Experiment 1, in Experiment 2 we compared the performance of amnesic and control participants on a one-item recognition task and a two-item recognition task that required no memory for the association between members of word pairs. In the MTL group, when single-item recognition was equated to that of the controls, two-item nonassociative pair memory was equivalent as well. In the DNC group, nonassociative pair memory was impaired, but this impairment did not fully account for the impairment in associative memory. These findings indicate that memory for novel associations between items is disproportionately impaired in comparison with memory for single items in amnesia.

iteria. Declarative Memory Observations of preserved and impaired memory in patients with amnesia indicate that the recall and recognition of facts and episodes, or declarative memory, is dependent on a particular subset of brain regions and can be disrupted selectively. How can we develop a better understanding of this selectivity? Indeed, one might pose the question: Why is declarative memory different from all other forms of memory? Here are four answers to this question: 1. Because declarative memory has distinct behavioral characteristics. 2. Because declarative memory has distinct subjective characteristics. 3. Because declarative memory has a distinct cognitive structure. 4. Because declarative memory has distinct neural substrates. Memory theorists tend to give one or another of these answers greater emphasis, as discussed further below. In any event, determi

The hippocampus reevaluated in unconscious learning and memory: at a tipping point?

The hippocampus and inferential reasoning: building

doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00069 The hippocampus and the flexible use and processing of language

amnesia impairs all manner of relational memory