The Neurophysiology of Memory

Suzuki, Eichenbaum · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2000 · neuroscience · 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000.tb06726.x · record Suzuki2000-the-neurophysiology-of-memory
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Source is pdftext and carries running heads, page numbers and at least two OCR scrambles (a sentence in the associative-learning section reads "...behavioral events their representations37 ... into Quirk et al.56 directly compared...", and one in the conclusions reads "the delay impairment is exacerbated as onds). This memory intervals increase"). Every quote above was chosen to avoid those corrupted stretches and each was substring-verified against the file. Only one claim_relation was recordable: the review names many prior studies (Fried et al., Henke et al., Gabrieli et al., Quirk et al., Tulving and colleagues) but only in the Sakai and Miyashita / Wood et al. sentence does it build its own synthesis explicitly on named work. 2026-08-14 schema-0.3 pass: 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.

This record’s own method is review, and the tags below follow from that. A review’s findings, quantities and statistics are things stated IN this paper, and some of them report results obtained elsewhere. No tag on this page names a different author. Measured across every review in this corpus, 81% of a review’s tags carry no citation at all — most of them are the review speaking. The corpus does not adjudicate the rest: read an unmarked tag as a claim this paper makes, not necessarily one it made first.

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
priming 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 5 concept tags on this paper, all 5 are grounded in a quoted sentence.

match enhancement ABBA version convergent cortical input parallel projections declarative memories Because the hippocampus receives polymodal rather than unimodal input, it is positioned to combine the cortex's stimulus-selective signals into complex conjunctions or to abstract a general output signal from them, which is why its mnemonic code is abstracted rather than stimulus-specific The occasional stimulus-selective, cortex-type recognition signals seen in the hippocampus are inherited through the direct anatomical projections from perirhinal and entorhinal cortex to area CA1 At long delays interference builds up, so contextual/episodic conjunctive information becomes the useful cue for recognition, which is why hippocampal damage bites hardest at long delays Cortical stimulus-stimulus association works by a cue acquiring the capacity to generate the neural representation of the stimulus it was paired with, producing pair-coding and pair-recall firing associative memory priming hippocampal formation "abstracted" recognition signal conjunctive coding familiarity effect physical characteristics location of the odor presentation review

Legend

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
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
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
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it

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/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000.tb06726.x. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 1 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 1 · concepts 5 · content_tags 26 · limitations 7 · mechanisms 4 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 3

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 1 relation here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose 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	medial temporal lobe neuronal correlates of recognition and associative 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	review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review	`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: Because the hippocampus receives polymodal rather than unimodal input, it is positioned to combine the cortex's stimulus-selective signals into complex conjunctions or to abstract a general output signal from them, which is why its mnemonic code is abstracted rather than stimulus-specific	`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: The occasional stimulus-selective, cortex-type recognition signals seen in the hippocampus are inherited through the direct anatomical projections from perirhinal and entorhinal cortex to area CA1	`mechanisms[1]`		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: At long delays interference builds up, so contextual/episodic conjunctive information becomes the useful cue for recognition, which is why hippocampal damage bites hardest at long delays	`mechanisms[2]`		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: Cortical stimulus-stimulus association works by a cue acquiring the capacity to generate the neural representation of the stimulus it was paired with, producing pair-coding and pair-recall firing	`mechanisms[3]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The parahippocampal/postrhinal cortex is excluded from the review because too little is known about its mnemonic activity. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the anatomical coverage of the review, and the field's coverage it reflects: MUCH LESS IS KNOWN ABOUT THE PATTERNS OF MNEMONIC ACTIVITY IN THE PARAHIPPOCAMPAL/POSTRHINAL CORTEX, AND THEREFORE THIS REGION WILL NOT BE DISCUSSED	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	No direct comparison exists that would identify which testing conditions produce similar versus different coding in cortex and hippocampus. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any comparison across testing conditions: A COMPELLING DIRECT COMPARISON THAT REVEALS THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THESE DIFFERENT TESTING CONDITIONS HAS YET TO BE MADE	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The scope of associative-memory signals across the medial temporal lobe is not yet established. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the reach of the associative-memory account: ADDITIONAL COMPARATIVE STUDIES ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE FULL SCOPE OF NEURAL SIGNALS UNDERLYING ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY ACROSS THE MEDIAL TEMPORAL LOBE	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	A specific empirical gap: intervening stimuli have not been tested against selective delay activity in rat perirhinal/entorhinal cortex. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the rat delay-activity literature specifically: THE EFFECT OF INTERVENING STIMULI ON THE SELECTIVE DELAY ACTIVITY IN THE PERIRHINAL OR ENTORHINAL CORTICES OF RATS HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED	`limitations[3]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The anatomy is used to support two opposite expectations, both stated in the same passage. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any finding of regional difference in the medial temporal lobe: the review argues from differing convergent cortical input that each area may be characterised by distinct patterns of mnemonic activity, and separately argues from parallel projections that all these regions access similar information	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	How many neurons show the effect depends on which version of the task was run. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any proportion of match-enhancement neurons quoted from this work: the proportion was substantially higher during the ABBA version of the task than during the standard version	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The neuropsychological literature is stated to give only indirect insight into neural activity. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any inference from lesion studies to patterns of neural activity: the authors state that neuropsychological studies of brain-damaged patients or experimental animals provide only indirect insights into the specific patterns of activity underlying declarative memory	`limitations[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concepts	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	`concepts[0]`		the paper's words
concepts	ABBA version Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ABBA version	`concepts[1]`		the paper's words
concepts	convergent cortical input Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: convergent cortical input	`concepts[2]`		the paper's words
concepts	parallel projections Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: parallel projections	`concepts[3]`		the paper's words
concepts	declarative memories Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: declarative memories	`concepts[4]`		the paper's words
senses	the anatomical argument - TWO OPPOSITE PREDICTIONS FROM THE SAME STRUCTURES: differing convergent cortical input is read as predicting distinct mnemonic patterns per area, and strong parallel projections as predicting shared access to similar information; both are stated, so neither a difference nor a similarity result can discriminate between them 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 - A PROPORTION THAT MOVES WITH THE PROTOCOL: substantially more neurons show it in the ABBA version of the task than in the standard version, so 'how many neurons do X' is a fact about the task that was run as much as about the tissue 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	neuropsychological evidence - INDIRECT BY THE AUTHORS' OWN DESCRIPTION: lesion work on patients and animals is said to provide only indirect insight into the specific patterns of neural activity, which is why the review turns to recording 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
claim_relations	builds-on → Sakai and Miyashita (ref. 52), pair-coding neurons; and Wood et al. (ref. 37), conjunctive coding neurons 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
concept_edges	ABBA version —causes→ match enhancement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 1 also in: ABBA version · match enhancement	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Across humans, monkeys and rats the patterns of memory-related firing in the medial temporal lobe are largely the same, so mnemonic signals are conserved across species. 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	Unlike the stimulus-selective recognition signals of cortex, hippocampal-formation neurons convey abstracted recognition memory signals. 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	Selective delay activity in perirhinal cortex was disrupted by even a single intervening stimulus. 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	Match-enhancement neurons were enhanced only when the behaviourally relevant stimulus was repeated. 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	Match suppression is not sensory fatigue or habituation, because the suppression is abolished when the same stimulus reappears as the sample on the next trial. 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	Hippocampal neurons nearly always showed different, independent spatial firing patterns in the two environments. 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	Damage limited to the hippocampus produces the most striking recognition impairments at long delays of many minutes to hours. 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	About a third to two fifths of human hippocampal (35%) and entorhinal (40%) neurons recorded at retrieval were influenced by whether the item was new or old. 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	Pair-recall neurons increased firing during the delay after the associate of their optimal cue, leading up to a robust response to that cue. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	associative memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: associative memory	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	hippocampal formation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: hippocampal formation	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	"abstracted" recognition signal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: "abstracted" recognition signal	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	conjunctive coding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conjunctive coding	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	familiarity effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: familiarity effect	`content_tags.definitions[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	physical characteristics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: physical characteristics	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	location of the odor presentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: location of the odor presentation	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	47% ... 94% — proportion of visually responsive monkey entorhinal (47%) versus perirhinal (94%) neurons that respond selectively to particular visual stimuli 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	35% ... 11% — proportion of sampled rat lateral entorhinal (35%) versus perirhinal (11%) neurons with odor-specific firing 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	15 of 120 or 12.5% — share of responsive hippocampal neurons that differentiated match from nonmatch presentations 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	13 of 91 or 14% — share of responsive rat hippocampal neurons carrying an abstracted match-nonmatch signal independent of odor identity 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	18 of 91 or 20% ... 4 of 91 or 4% — share of responsive hippocampal neurons coding match-nonmatch status conjointly with position (20%), or with both position and odor identity (4%) 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	24 hours — longest delay across which repetition suppression to a once-novel stimulus persists 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	74 neurons in 3 regions — size of the human single-unit sample in the recognition study whose results matched the animal cortical pattern Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	24 — number of fractal stimulus patterns used in the paired-associate study of inferotemporal and perirhinal neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	between 1 and 10 hours — encoding-to-retrieval interval in the human single-unit recognition task, a delay known to challenge amnesic patients Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[8]`		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.