Role of the Hippocampus in Distinct Memory Traces: Timing of Match and Mismatch Enhancement Revealed by Intracranial Recording

Ni, Wu, Yu, Zhu, Li, Liu · Neuroscience Bulletin · 2017 · neuroscience · 10.1007/s12264-017-0172-8 · record Ni2017-role-of-the-hippocampus-in-distinct-memory-t
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (html); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Replication status is 'replicated' in the direction of this paper replicating an earlier finding: it reuses Duncan's stimuli and reports the same match/mismatch dissociation with intracranial recording instead of fMRI. Its own novel contribution - the ~150 ms latency gap - is itself untested; the facet cannot express both directions at once. Sample is small and clinical (8 epilepsy patients), which the paper acknowledges only indirectly via the task-modification sentence quoted as a limitation. 2026-08-12 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

2 quotations on this page contain a reference number where the paper printed a superscript. This journal style prints citations as raised numerals — parameters^12,13 — and the extraction flattened them into the line, so the sentence reads parameters 12 , 13 . The digits are citation markers and not part of what the author wrote. The quotes keep them for the same reason they keep every other extraction fault: a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
prediction error 6 fields · working memory 4 fields · latency 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 20 concept tags on this paper, none is grounded in a quoted sentence. All carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

working memory goal match enhancement perceptual mismatch enhancement match enhancement mismatch enhancement delayed-match-to-sample hippocampus left posterior hippocampus right posterior hippocampus intracranial field potential event-related potentials relational memory pattern completion novelty detection prediction error linear discriminant analysis Monte Carlo permutations hippocampal sclerosis perirhinal cortex simulation of a specific future event whether an incoming event matches or mismatches expectation drives the hippocampus to switch between memory encoding and memory retrieval modes decoding of task demand was degraded because participants defaulted to maintaining the sample in both tasks instead of simulating a new scene on switch trials, so the two tasks engaged more similar mental operations than the design intended ECoG depth electrodes medial temporal lobe latency of the enhancement effect object configuration local field potential reaction time and accuracy electrode configuration latency task demand correct percentage paired t-test Paired sample t tests t-test (sample-by-sample, time-resolved) The sample-by-sample t -test ANOVA (two-way) sample-by-sample two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) permutation test ANOVA (three-way) with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons multiple comparison of three-way ANOVA analysis with Bonferroni confidence interval adjustment correlation significantly correlated with the accuracy of memory performance linear discriminant analysis with principal component analysis A linear discriminant analysis ... with the principal component analysis approach for dimensionality reduction standard error of the mean p-value sample-by-sample t -test Bonferroni confidence interval adjustment electrophysiology

Legend

second reading	`alternatives`	an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees
relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
contribution	`contribution`	what the paper claims to add
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
object of study	`object_of_study`	what the paper is about — the thing it investigates
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
research question	`research_question`	the question the paper sets itself
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it
transfer	`transfers`	a method or concept carried in from another field

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12264-017-0172-8. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

alternatives 3 · claim_relations 9 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 2 · content_tags 57 · contribution 1 · controls 1 · limitations 8 · mechanisms 13 · method 1 · object_of_study 1 · phenomenon 1 · research_question 1 · senses 6 · transfers 2

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
object_of_study	the timing of goal-match and perceptual-mismatch signals in the human hippocampus during a working memory task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`object_of_study`		the paper's words
research_question	if and how the hippocampus is involved in working memory, and whether its components separate in time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`research_question`		the paper's words
contribution	separates goal-match from perceptual-mismatch enhancement within identical stimuli and times them, finding mismatch about 150 ms earlier and localised bilaterally where match is left posterior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`contribution`		the paper's words
claim_type	existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	hippocampal match and mismatch enhancement in working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	electrophysiology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electrophysiology	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: whether an incoming event matches or mismatches expectation drives the hippocampus to switch between memory encoding and memory retrieval modes	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: decoding of task demand was degraded because participants defaulted to maintaining the sample in both tasks instead of simulating a new scene on switch trials, so the two tasks engaged more similar mental operations than the design intended	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	the same probe display is a goal match or a perceptual match depending only on a verbal instruction, which dissociates the two within identical stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	this is exactly what the earlier imaging work could not do, and the paper says why Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	a two-step contrast is used: first find where the two instruction conditions differ, then ask within that window which of the two enhancement patterns holds Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	latencies are validated against 1000 label permutations rather than taken from the contrast alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	the identical electrode configuration across patients is what makes grand averaging across individuals defensible Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	patients with hippocampal sclerosis are excluded so that the recorded tissue is morphologically intact Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	display timings were shortened because the constraint that set them belonged to a method this study does not use Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	the task was modified to fit the patients rather than the patients excluded to fit the task, which is disclosed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	the single-participant threshold is loosened relative to the group analysis, and the loosening is stated Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	single-trial decoding is used to ask whether task demand is recoverable at all, independently of the averaged contrasts Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	the decoding result is then argued to be an underestimate, because subjects probably maintained the sample regardless of instruction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[12]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The single-trial decoding result may be weakened because participants tended to maintain the sample regardless of which task was instructed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the single-trial decoding result: THE RESULT OF THE DECODING MIGHT BE COMPROMISED, BECAUSE THE DISSOCIATION BETWEEN THE SWITCH AND MATCH TASK RELIES ON A DIFFERENT MENTAL MANIPULATION	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The task had to be modified from the original because the epilepsy patients' memory performance was impaired relative to healthy participants. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any comparison with the original task or with unimpaired participants: THIS MODIFICATION WAS IMPLEMENTED TO AID PATIENT PERFORMANCE BECAUSE ... THEIR MEMORY PERFORMANCE WAS IMPAIRED COMPARED TO NORMAL PARTICIPANTS	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	the decoding may understate the effect because participants likely maintained the sample whatever the task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0], with the direction given: THE PARTICIPANT TENDED TO MAINTAIN THE SAMPLE NO MATTER WHAT THE TASK WAS, WHICH MAY LEAD TO A POOR PERFORMANCE IN DECODING	`limitations[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	the paradigm was altered from the original to make it performable by patients Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[1] - the paradigm is a modified one, with THE REPEATED PRESENTATION OF THE SAMPLE AFTER THE AUDITORY INSTRUCTION added	`limitations[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	electrode placement was dictated entirely by clinical need Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: which structures could be observed at all: THE ELECTRODE LOCATIONS WERE BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON CLINICAL CRITERIA	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	the task inseparably combines object identity with location, so the hippocampal involvement cannot be attributed to either alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any attribution of the hippocampal signal to one factor: A COMBINATION OF TWO STREAMS OF INFORMATION, OBJECT IDENTITY AND POSITION, ARE INVOLVED IN THE TASK	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	the supporting spatial-memory literature comes mostly from animal models Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the convergent-evidence argument: the spatial-memory role is well understood, THOUGH ANIMAL MODELS WERE USED IN MOST OF THE STUDIES	`limitations[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	testing patients before and after resection is proposed as the missing comparison Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the causal question the recordings cannot reach: IT WILL BE OF INTEREST TO TEST THE RESULTS FROM THE ANIMAL MODELS ON EPILEPSY PATIENTS BEFORE AND AFTER RESECTION	`limitations[7]`	0.9	the tagger's words
transfers	the dissociation between repetition suppression and sample-matched enhancement, imported as the template for what to look for in human hippocampus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
transfers	linear discriminant analysis after principal component reduction, used to ask whether the task instruction is recoverable from a single trial Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
controls	trials with potential artifacts rejected on the amplitude of the data from 1 to 700 ms, per participant, after baseline correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: movement and electrical artifacts entering an averaged evoked response, with the threshold applied per participant rather than globally · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
senses	working memory - as measured by a digit span, where these patients are intact, versus as measured by feature integration, where they are impaired; the same patients on two tests Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	match enhancement - as a response to a goal state versus as a response to a previously perceived stimulus; the paradigm separates them within identical displays Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	the same probe display - counting as GOAL or PERCEPT depending only on the verbal instruction that preceded it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	enhancement - a match effect where BOTH exceeds NEITHER, against a mismatch effect where NEITHER exceeds BOTH; two opposite orderings of the same four conditions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	a late perceptual match effect that fits neither pattern cleanly, with BOTH above NEITHER but GOAL below PERCEPT Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[4]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	hippocampal role - as long-term declarative memory only, versus as also serving working memory encoding and retrieval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
alternatives	claim_type: existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: existence — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.claim_type`		the tagger's words
alternatives	method: intracranial field potentials from depth electrodes along the hippocampal axis during a modified delayed-match-to-sample task in which a verbal instruction determines whether a display counts as a goal match or a perceptual match Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: electrophysiology — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.method`		the tagger's words
alternatives	phenomenon: match and mismatch signals in the hippocampus during working memory maintenance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: hippocampal match and mismatch enhancement in working memory — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.phenomenon`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	replicates → Duncan et al.'s fMRI dissociation of goal match and perceptual mismatch enhancement (reference [29]) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Duncan (reference [29]) - stimuli and task design reused Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → previous electrophysiological research on match and mismatch enhancement (references [18], [19]) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[2]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → the fMRI study proposing parallel goal-match and perceptual-mismatch traces, by adding the timing it could not resolve Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	critiques → earlier imaging designs in which perceptual mismatches and goal matches are unavoidably mixed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → the traditional view that the hippocampus subserves long-term declarative memory only Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[5]`	0.95	the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Miller and Desimone, who dissociated repetition suppression from sample-specific match enhancement in perirhinal cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	supports → evidence that the hippocampus is engaged when features must be bound to location but not for single features Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → fMRI work that found only a subtle perceptual mismatch effect, by resolving it with intracranial timing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[8]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	goal match enhancement —contrasted-with→ perceptual mismatch enhancement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'this effect' = the goal match enhancement effect (previous sentence). also in: goal match enhancement · perceptual mismatch enhancement	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	match enhancement —contrasted-with→ mismatch enhancement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: match enhancement · mismatch enhancement	`concept_edges[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	paired t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: paired t-test	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	t-test (sample-by-sample, time-resolved) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test (sample-by-sample, time-resolved)	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	ANOVA (two-way) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA (two-way)	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	permutation test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: permutation test	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	ANOVA (three-way) with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA (three-way) with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	linear discriminant analysis with principal component analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: linear discriminant analysis with principal component analysis	`content_tags.statistics[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	standard error of the mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error of the mean	`content_tags.statistics[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value	`content_tags.statistics[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	sample-by-sample t -test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sample-by-sample t -test	`content_tags.statistics[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	Monte Carlo permutations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Monte Carlo permutations	`content_tags.statistics[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	linear discriminant analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: linear discriminant analysis	`content_tags.statistics[11]`	0.85	the tagger's words
content_tags	Bonferroni confidence interval adjustment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Bonferroni confidence interval adjustment	`content_tags.statistics[12]`	0.7	the tagger's words
content_tags	Goal match enhancement appeared only at contacts in the left posterior hippocampus, whereas perceptual mismatch enhancement appeared bilaterally across both anterior and posterior hippocampus. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The perceptual mismatch signal began before the goal match signal in every one of the eight participants. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The two hippocampal signals divide by content: match enhancement tracks the match to the maintained goal while mismatch enhancement tracks perceptual mismatch, dissociating components of working memory within the hippocampus. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Participants whose right posterior hippocampus produced a later perceptual mismatch enhancement were more accurate, a positive correlation between latency and memory performance. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	That latency-accuracy link is read as evidence that the right posterior hippocampal mismatch latency indexes the quality of memory retrieval. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	In six of the eight patients, single-trial intracranial field potentials from the right hippocampus were sufficient to classify whether the trial was a match task or a switch task. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Behaviourally, responses were faster in the match task than in the switch task. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Hippocampal engagement here is attributed to the task requiring object identity and location to be bound together, in both the match and the switch task. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	goal match enhancement appeared in the left posterior hippocampus between about 520 and 735 ms after probe onset Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	perceptual mismatch enhancement appeared bilaterally in anterior and posterior hippocampus, averaging 376 to 555 ms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	mismatch enhancement began earlier than match enhancement in every participant Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	region latencies were 524 ms for goal match and about 405 to 430 ms for perceptual mismatch across the four subdivisions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	a late perceptual match effect appeared on two electrodes at 717 and 900 ms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[12]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	for each electrode and effect, the probability of the observed latency was below 0.05 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[13]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	mismatch latency in the right posterior hippocampus correlated positively with memory accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[14]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	task demand was decodable from single trials in 6 of 8 patients, always from the right hippocampus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[15]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	responses were faster in the match task than in the switch task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[16]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	over 80% of trials survived artifact rejection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[17]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	mismatch enhancement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mismatch enhancement	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	latency of the enhancement effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: latency of the enhancement effect	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	match enhancement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: match enhancement	`content_tags.definitions[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	delayed-match-to-sample Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: delayed-match-to-sample	`content_tags.definitions[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	intracranial field potential Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: intracranial field potential	`content_tags.definitions[6]`	0.8	the tagger's words
content_tags	object configuration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: object configuration	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	local field potential Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: local field potential	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	latency of the enhancement effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: latency of the enhancement effect	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	reaction time and accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reaction time and accuracy	`content_tags.variables[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	electrode configuration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electrode configuration	`content_tags.variables[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	latency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: latency	`content_tags.variables[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	task demand Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: task demand	`content_tags.variables[10]`	0.85	the tagger's words
content_tags	correct percentage Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correct percentage	`content_tags.variables[11]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	120 ... 8 — depth electrode contacts recorded, and epilepsy patients implanted Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	126 — trials per experimental run Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	>80% — proportion of trials retained after artifact rejection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	1000 — random permutations computed per electrode to test the observed enhancement latencies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	<0.05 — permutation probability of the observed latency, for every electrode and every significant effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	6 out of 8 — patients whose hippocampal field potentials reliably represented the task demand in single-trial decoding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	120 depth electrode contacts in 8 patients — the sample Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	520 ms to 735 ms — window of goal match enhancement after probe onset Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	376 ms to 555 ms — window of perceptual mismatch enhancement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	~150 ms — how much earlier mismatch precedes match Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	ρ = 0.74 — correlation between right posterior mismatch latency and accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	126 trials per run, 3 to 5 runs — to obtain at least 80 correct trials per participant Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	6 out of 8 — patients whose task demand was decodable from hippocampal signal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[12]`	1.0	the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.