CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 373Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Functions and Memory

Working memory, long-term memory, and medial temporal lobe function

Open access
Jeneson, Annette, Squire, Larry R.·2012·Learning & Memory
DOI 10.1101/lm.024018.111PMC PMC3246590
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Early studies of memory-impaired patients with medial temporal lobe (MTL) damage led to the view that the hippocampus and related MTL structures are involved in the formation of long-term memory and that immediate memory and working memory are independent of these structures. This traditional idea has recently been revisited. Impaired performance in patients with MTL lesions on tasks with short retention intervals, or no retention interval, and neuroimaging findings with similar tasks have been interpreted to mean that the MTL is sometimes needed for working memory and possibly even for visual perception itself. We present a reappraisal of this interpretation. Our main conclusion is that, if the material to be learned exceeds working memory capacity, if the material is difficult to rehearse, or if attention is diverted, performance depends on long-term memory even when the retention interval is brief. This fundamental notion is better captured by the terms subspan memory and supraspan memory than by the terms short-term memory and long-term memory. We propose methods for determining when performance on short-delay tasks must depend on long-term (supraspan) memory and suggest that MTL lesions impair performance only when immediate memory and working memory are insufficient to support performance. In neuroimaging studies, MTL activity during encoding is influenced by the memory load and correlates positively with long-term retention of the material that was presented. The most parsimonious and consistent interpretation of all the data is that subspan memoranda are supported by immediate memory and working memory and are independent of the MTL.

Verified 2026-10-06 · 29 references not checked yet

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/lm.024018.111

Cites

73 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 151 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingcitation

    In Aggleton et al. (1992), the patients performed well at the 10-second delay.

    “it is noteworthy that the patients performed well at the 10-sec delay (our Fig. 1A).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Aggleton et al. 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingown data

    Ranganath and Blumenfeld's (2005) review mistakenly illustrated not the performance of the four patients with medial temporal lobe damage, but the performance of five different patients from the same study who had mixed etiologies and no evidence of medial temporal lobe damage.

    “Unfortunately, Ranganath and Blumenfeld's (2005) review mistakenly illustrated not the performance of the four patients with MTL damage, but the performance of five different patients from the same study who had mixed etiologies and no evidence of damage to the MTL (our Fig. 1D).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ranganath and Blumenfeld 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    In Aggleton et al. (1992), the patients as a group were impaired only after delays of 30 seconds or longer.

    “Thus, the patients were, as a group, impaired only after delays of 30 sec or longer”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Aggleton et al. 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    In Buffalo et al. (1998), at the intermediate delay of 6 to 8 seconds, where patients first exhibited impaired performance, the average delay for the four study items was 11 seconds.

    “Similarly, at the intermediate delay (6-8 sec), where patients first exhibited impaired performance, the average delay for the four study items was 11 sec.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Buffalo et al. 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    In both tests of relational information in Hannula et al. (2006), patients performed worse than controls even at a lag of one item, when no stimuli intervened between study and test.

    “In both tests of relational information, patients performed worse than controls even at a lag of one item, i.e., when no stimuli intervened between study and test.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hannula et al. 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. 40
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 15

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In Holdstock et al. (2000), four medial temporal lobe patients exhibited fully intact performance at the three short delays and were impaired only at the longer delays, during which active maintenance was disrupted by a filler task.

    “In the third study (Holdstock et al. 2000), four MTL patients exhibited fully intact performance at the three short delays (Fig. 1C), and were impaired only at the longer delays (during which active maintenance was disrupted by a filler task).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Holdstock et al. 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In Buffalo et al. (1998), because the four study items were presented serially with a 1-second presentation time and a 1-second inter-stimulus interval, the delay between the first study item and the test was actually 6 to 8 seconds even in the 0-2-second delay condition, with an average delay of 3.8 seconds for all four study items at the shortest delay.

    “because the four study items were presented serially (1-sec presentation time/item) with a 1-sec inter-stimulus-interval, the delay between the first study item and test was actually 6 -8 sec, even in the 0 -2-sec delay condition (average delay for all four study items at the shortest delay ¼ 3.8 sec).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Buffalo et al. 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In Buffalo et al. (1998), two patients with confirmed medial temporal lobe damage exhibited intact performance at the shortest retention delay and impaired performance at longer delays.

    “In the second study (Buffalo et al. 1998), two patients with confirmed MTL damage exhibited intact performance at the shortest retention delay and impaired performance at the longer delays (Fig. 1B).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Buffalo et al. 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In the three studies reviewed, performance was intact at the shortest delay or delays and impaired only at longer delays.

    “In the three studies just reviewed, which tested retention of novel visual objects after MTL damage, performance was intact at the shortest delay(s) and impaired only at longer delays.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Aggleton et al. 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Buffalo et al. 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Holdstock et al. 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In two similar experiments in Olson et al. (2006b), patients were intact in the feature condition and impaired in the conjunction condition.

    “In two similar experiments, the results were that patients were intact in the feature condition and impaired in the conjunction condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Olson et al. 2006b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In Hannula et al. (2006), patients exhibited good memory for the scenes themselves, that is item information, but were impaired at remembering information about the location of objects within the scenes, that is relational information.

    “Patients exhibited good memory for the scenes themselves (item information) but were impaired at remembering information about the location of objects within the scenes (relational information).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hannula et al. 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In our own recent study, at the longer delays, patients performed as well as controls for small array sizes of one and two items and were impaired only for array sizes expected to exceed memory capacity, namely three, four, and six items.

    “At the longer delays (average of the three longer delays), patients performed as well as controls for small array sizes (one and two items) and were impaired only for array sizes that could be expected to exceed memory capacity (three, four, and six items).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In the Barense et al. (2007) oddity task, patients were intact when controls made no errors but impaired in two conditions when controls made errors.

    “the patients were intact when the controls made no errors but were impaired in two conditions when the controls made errors”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Barense et al. 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Jeneson et al. (2011b) Experiment 2, patients were impaired at a 1-sec delay, whereas in Experiment 1 they were not, even though patients performed the same in both experiments.

    “the impaired performance reported for patients at a 1-sec delay in Experiment 2 (but not in Experiment 1) occurred despite the fact that the patients performed the same in both experiments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Patient G.P. reached criterion as quickly as controls for one, two, and three object-location associations, but failed to reach criterion for four objects even after 10 attempts.

    “patient G.P. reached criterion as quickly as controls for one, two, and three objectlocation associations (within one or two trials).Yet, when the set size was increased by only one additional object (set size 4), he failed to reach criterion even after 10 attempts with the same array of four objects”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jeneson et al. 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Jeneson et al. (2011b) Experiment 2, patients with hippocampal damage had intact memory for object-in-scene information at a 3-sec retention delay and impaired memory at a 14-sec delay.

    “the patients exhibited fully intact memory for object-in-scene information when the retention delay was short (3 sec), and they exhibited impaired memory when the delay was long (14 sec).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Patients with medial temporal lobe lesions including perirhinal cortex damage were intact on feature-ambiguous object discriminations when controls made no errors but impaired in two conditions when controls made errors.

    “Note that the patients were intact when the controls made no errors but were impaired in two conditions when the controls made errors”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Barense et al. 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In a separate behavioral study, subsequent recognition memory was better for complex images, the same condition that elicited the greatest MTL activity in the corresponding fMRI experiment.

    “In a separate behavioral study, they also found that subsequent recognition memory was better for complex images-the same condition that elicited the greatest MTL activity in the corresponding fMRI experiment when the material was studied”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lee and Rudebeck 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Medial temporal lobe patients succeeded on memory tasks within immediate capacity but failed when the number of items exceeded that capacity.

    “MTL patient H.M. succeeded at six digits in his first try but could not succeed at repeating back seven digits even after 25 attempts with the same string.”
    • Also stated in: § MTL activity during and after learning as a predictor of long-term memory · plain
      “G.P. succeeded easily with one, two, and three objects but could not reproduce the locations of four objects, even after 10 attempts with the same display.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Squire and Wixted 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    A number of studies have reported impaired performance after medial temporal lobe damage on tasks involving delays as short as a few seconds.

    “A number of studies have reported impaired performance after MTL damage on tasks involving delays as short as a few seconds.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Impairments have been noted on tasks involving novel objects or patterns, faces, colored squares, topographical scenes, and retention of relations between items.

    “Thus, impairments have been noted on tasks involving novel objects or patterns (Aggleton et al. 1992;Buffalo et al. 1998;Holdstock et al. 2000), faces (Nichols et al. 2006;Olson et al. 2006a;Ezzyat and Olson 2008), colored squares (Olson et al. 2006a), topographical scenes (Hartley et al. 2007), and tasks requiring retention of the relations between items (Hannula et al. 2006;Olson et al. 2006b).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Aggleton et al. 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Buffalo et al. 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Holdstock et al. 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    This error was reproduced in Graham et al. (2010) and may have contributed to the impression that the medial temporal lobe is needed for working memory of novel visual objects because in Figure 1D the patients performed poorly at short delays.

    “This error, which was reproduced in the more recent review by Graham et al. (2010), may have contributed to the impression that the MTL is needed for working memory of novel visual objects because, in Figure 1D, the patients performed poorly at short delays.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Graham et al. 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The most parsimonious and consistent interpretation of the data is that subspan memoranda are supported by immediate memory and working memory and are independent of the medial temporal lobe.

    “The most parsimonious and consistent interpretation of all the data is that subspan memoranda are supported by immediate memory and working memory and are independent of the MTL.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Several neuroimaging studies have reported medial temporal lobe activation during short-delay tasks involving various kinds of visual material.

    “several neuroimaging studies have reported MTL activation during short-delay tasks involving various kinds of visual material.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Impaired performance has also been noted in two continuous recognition tests with an inter-stimulus interval of only 3 seconds and less consistently in tasks with delays as short as 1 to 2 seconds.

    “Impaired performance has also been noted in two continuous recognition tests where the inter-stimulus-interval was only 3 sec (Hannula et al. 2006) and (less consistently) in tasks where the delays were as short as 1 -2 sec”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hannula et al. 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Olson et al. 2006b

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hartley et al. 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In memory-impaired patients with medial temporal lobe damage, immediate memory and working memory are independent of the hippocampus and related medial temporal lobe structures, while those structures are involved in forming long-term memory.

    “Early studies of memory-impaired patients with medial temporal lobe (MTL) damage led to the view that the hippocampus and related MTL structures are involved in the formation of long-term memory and that immediate memory and working memory are independent of these structures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Drachman and Arbit 1966

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Baddeley and Warrington 1970

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Milner 1972

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    In neuroimaging studies, medial temporal lobe activity during encoding is influenced by memory load and is positively correlated with long-term retention of the presented material.

    “In neuroimaging studies, MTL activity during encoding is influenced by the memory load and correlates positively with long-term retention of the material that was presented.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In Ezzyat and Olson (2008), medial temporal lobe damage impaired retention of a single morphed face across a delay of 1 second in a forced-choice test but not in a yes/no test, and after a delay of 8 seconds in the yes/no test but not in the forced-choice test.

    “In a third study (Ezzyat and Olson 2008), MTL damage impaired retention of a single morphed face across a delay of 1 sec (in a forced-choice test but not in a yes/no test) and after a delay of 8 sec (in the yes/no test but not in the forced-choice test).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ezzyat and Olson 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The appropriate comparison group for evaluating the memory capacity of medial temporal lobe patients is a group of age-matched and education-matched individuals.

    “The difficulty is that the appropriate comparison group for evaluating the memory capacity of MTL patients is a group of age-matched and education-matched individuals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Change-detection performance is limited both by the number of items that can be maintained in memory and by the similarity between sample and test stimuli.

    “Finally, it has been demonstrated that changedetection performance is limited both by the number of items that can be maintained in memory and by the similarity between sample and test stimuli (Awh et al. 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Awh et al. 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    In the scene-face association task, participants had to maintain multiple previous scene-face pairs even at lag 1 because they could not know whether the next trial would be a new study trial or a probe of the most recent or an earlier pair.

    “participants also had to try to hold in mind a number of previous scene-face pairs even at the lag of 1, because they did not know whether the next trial would consist of a new study trial, a probe trial concerning the most recently presented scene-face pair, or a probe trial concerning a scene-face pair that had been presented up to nine trials earlier.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Performance at longer delays depends in part on long-term memory, and impaired performance at these longer delays reflects impaired long-term memory.

    “Accordingly, we suggest that performance at these longer delays depends, in part, on long-term memory and that impaired performance at these longer delays reflects impaired long-term memory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    An alternative possibility is that memory for relational information was impaired because the demands on memory were higher in the conditions assessing memory for relations than in the conditions assessing memory for items, and that these demands exceeded visual working memory capacity.

    “An alternative possibility is that memory for relational information was impaired because the demands on memory were higher in the conditions assessing memory for relations than in the conditions assessing memory for items, and that these demands on memory exceeded visual working memory capacity (Shrager et al. 2008;Baddeley et al. 2010;Jeneson et al. 2011b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Shrager et al. 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Baddeley et al. 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Jeneson et al. 2011b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    When sample-test similarity is high, more visual detail must be maintained and memory capacity is lower.

    “When the sample-test similarity is high, more visual detail must be maintained and the memory capacity is lower (see also Alvarez and Cavanagh 2004).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Alvarez and Cavanagh 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Intact performance at short delays after hippocampal lesions or larger medial temporal lobe lesions, and impaired performance at longer delays, has been well demonstrated in monkeys and also in rats.

    “It is also worth emphasizing that intact performance at short delays after hippocampal lesions or larger MTL lesions, and impaired performance at longer delays, has been well-demonstrated in monkeys (Overman et al. 1990;Alvarez et al. 1994) and also in rats (Clark et al. 2001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Overman et al. 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Alvarez et al. 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Clark et al. 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In Ezzyat and Olson (2008), patients exhibited intact performance at the 1-second delay in one of the two tests, namely in the forced-choice test but not in the yes/no test.

    “In the study by Ezzyat and Olson (2008), patients exhibited intact performance at the 1-sec delay in one of the two tests (in the forced-choice test but not in the yes/no test).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ezzyat and Olson 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Estimates of visual working memory capacity in change-detection tasks are typically obtained by assessing performance after delays of 1 second, and therefore do not provide suitable estimates of working memory capacity in tests given after delays of 4 seconds or longer.

    “Furthermore, estimates of visual working memory capacity in change-detection tasks are typically obtained by assessing performance after delays of 1 sec (e.g., 900 msec in Luck and Vogel 1997; average delay of 1.1 sec [average of 300, 900, and 2000 msec] in Eng et al. 2005), and therefore do not provide suitable estimates of working memory capacity in tests given after delays of 4 sec or longer”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Luck and Vogel 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Eng et al. 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Previous research suggests that three or four colored squares can be maintained in visual working memory.

    “It is true that previous research suggests that three or four colored squares can be maintained in visual working memory (e.g., Luck and Vogel 1997;Cowan 2001;Fukuda et al. 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Luck and Vogel 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Cowan 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Fukuda et al. 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The striking finding summarized in Figure 1 is not that the patients were impaired at study-test delays of 6 to 30 seconds but that they exhibited intact retention of complex visual information at delays of 0 to 10 seconds.

    “the striking finding summarized in Figure 1 is not that the patients were impaired at study-test delays of 6 -30 sec but that they exhibited intact retention of complex visual information at delays of 0 -10 sec.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premiseown data

    Both interference and delay increase the probability of distraction, and active maintenance can support good performance only while attention is continuously directed at the memorandum.

    “Both interference and delay increase the probability of distraction, and active maintenance can support good performance only so long as attention is continuously directed toward the memorandum.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In tasks where distraction disrupted control performance, MTL patients were intact, suggesting they could maintain information in working memory like controls.

    “patients were intact in tasks where distraction disrupted control performance, suggesting that the patients were successful because they (like controls) could maintain information in working memory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Distraction disrupts control performance whenever performance depends on maintaining information in working memory.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In the oddity task, patients with MTL lesions including perirhinal cortex were intact in the minimum ambiguity condition and impaired in the intermediate and maximum ambiguity conditions.

    “patients with MTL lesions that included perirhinal cortex were intact in the minimum ambiguity condition and impaired in the intermediate and maximum ambiguity conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Barense et al. 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Controls succeeded despite distraction in tasks where they relied on long-term memory rather than working memory.

    “Controls presumably succeeded in the face of distraction in tasks where they were depending on long-term memory rather than working memory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Distraction disrupts control performance whenever performance depends on maintaining information in working memory.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The fact that controls made errors only in the more difficult conditions suggests that working memory was insufficient to support performance and immediate memory capacity may have been exceeded in those conditions.

    “the fact that controls exhibited errors only in these more difficult conditions (Fig. 4, right) suggests that working memory was not sufficient to support performance, that is, immediate memory capacity may have been exceeded in the two more difficult conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In Hartley et al. (2007), all five MTL patients were impaired after a 2-sec delay, and three of the five were impaired even in the matching task.

    “All five MTL patients were impaired after the 2-sec delay, and three of the five patients were impaired even in the matching task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hartley et al. 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In Drachman and Arbit (1966), controls first erred at strings of eight digits but with repeated attempts could eventually repeat back as many as 20 digits.

    “Controls made their first errors with strings of eight digits, but, with repeated attempts at each string, they were eventually able to repeat back as many as 20 digits.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Drachman and Arbit 1966

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In a recent study, patients with hippocampal lesions were impaired when the same comparison stimuli were used on every trial but were fully intact when stimuli were unique to every trial.

    “patients with hippocampal lesions were impaired when the same comparison stimuli were used on every trial but were fully intact when the stimuli were unique to every trial (Kim et al. 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kim et al. 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    In the Jeneson et al. (2011b) procedure, the answer to the orienting question did not inform participants whether the scene had been altered.

    “the answer to the orienting question did not provide information about whether the scene had been altered or not.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In Jeneson et al. (2011b), memory for object-in-scene information was impaired only when the task imposed relatively large memory demands, either by requiring maintenance of several scenes (Experiment 1) or by using a long retention interval (Experiment 2).

    “Thus, in this study, memory was impaired for object-in-scene information only when the task imposed relatively large demands on memory (because several scenes needed to be maintained [Experiment 1], or because the retention interval was long [Experiment 2]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The pattern is not that some kinds of working memory depend on medial temporal lobe, but that some kinds of short-delay tasks depend on long-term (supraspan) memory.

    “The story that emerges is not that some kinds of working memory depend on the MTL, but rather that some kinds of short-delay tasks depend on long-term (supraspan) memory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    A long tradition of research has established the importance of prefrontal cortex and cortical association areas involved in perceptual processing.

    “A long tradition of work has identified the importance of prefrontal cortex and the cortical association areas that are involved in perceptual processing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    This finding and later work associated prefrontal cortex with short-term memory and, later, working memory.

    “This finding and much subsequent work linked the prefrontal cortex to what was initially termed short-term memory and, in later elaborations, working memory (Goldman-Rakic 1995;Fuster 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Goldman-Rakic 1995

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Fuster 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Working memory consists of temporary capacities intrinsic to information-processing subsystems and is under top-down control by prefrontal cortex.

    “Thus, working memory is a collection of temporary capacities intrinsic to”
    • Also stated in: § MTL activity during and after learning as a predictor of long-term memory · plain
      “information processing”
    • Also stated in: § MTL activity during and after learning as a predictor of long-term memory · plain
      “subsystems and are under top-down control by the prefrontal cortex.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    One view is that prefrontal cortex supports working memory by directing attention to task-relevant sensory signals.

    “One view is that the prefrontal cortex supports working memory by directing attention to task-relevant sensory signals (Postle 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Postle 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The important distinction is between tasks whose material is within immediate memory capacity (subspan) and tasks whose material exceeds immediate memory capacity (supraspan).

    “Instead, the important distinction is between tasks where the material to be learned and maintained is within the capacity of immediate memory (subspan material) and tasks where what is to be learned exceeds immediate memory capacity (supraspan material).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Immediate memory and working memory deal only with subspan memoranda, briefly, while attention is directed toward the memorandum.

    “Immediate memory and working memory, in contrast, deal”
    • Also stated in: § MTL activity during and after learning as a predictor of long-term memory · plain
      “only with subspan memoranda, evanescently, as long as the subject's attention is directed toward the memorandum”
    • Also stated in: § MTL activity during and after learning as a predictor of long-term memory · plain
      “(Drachman and Arbit 1966, p. 59).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Drachman and Arbit 1966

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Under this view, working memory retention depends on sustained activity in the brain areas that process perceptual information.

    “From this perspective, retention of information in working memory is supported by sustained activity in the various brain areas that process perceptual information (Jonides et al. 2005;Pasternak and Greenlee 2005;Postle 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Jonides et al. 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Pasternak and Greenlee 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Postle 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

52 of 52

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The probability that attention will be diverted increases with the amount of time that has passed since learning.

    “Because the probability that attention will be diverted increases with the amount of time that has passed since learning”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A short retention interval reduces the probability that attention will be diverted.

    “Similarly, because a short retention interval reduces the probability that attention will be diverted”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A limited amount of information may be held in mind indefinitely if attention is continuously directed toward the memorandum.

    “Still, a limited amount of information may be held in mind indefinitely if attention is continuously directed toward the memorandum.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Distraction disrupts control performance whenever performance depends on maintaining information in working memory.

    “It is assumed that distraction will be disruptive for controls whenever performance depends on maintaining information in working memory.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Conflicting intermediate-delay ranges

    Minor

    The discussion identifies the intermediate delay in the Buffalo et al. study as 6-8 seconds, whereas the caption for that study's panel gives it as 6-10 seconds.

  • Opposite accounts of the one-second face-memory result

    Minor

    One passage says patients were impaired in the forced-choice test but not the yes/no test at one second. A later passage says their performance was intact in the forced-choice test but not the yes/no test at the same delay.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 103 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jeneson, A., & Squire, L. R.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
ORCID
Squire, Larry R.
Venue
Learning & Memory
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Published
2011-12-16
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
15-25
ISSN
  • 1072-0502 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5485
DOI
10.1101/lm.024018.111
PMC
PMC3246590
OpenAlex
W1985942784
Semantic Scholar
4a843f0c1909403201c1e6b13dfcf8515f1db78d
Cited by
368
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 13
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Learning & Memory (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • National Institute of Mental Health (24600, Grant 24600, R01MH024600, MH24600)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
working memory, long-term memory, medial temporal lobe, hippocampus, short-term memory, memory span, memory load, rehearsal, attention, memory encoding, memory impairment, visual perception
MeSH terms
Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Temporal Lobe, Memory, Long-Term

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review