Memory, whereas Adjacent (Extrahippocampa.l) Lesions Impair Detection and Explanation

This note discusses two fundamentally different paradigms or metatheoretical approaches that currently guide cognitive neuropsychology: the Theoretical- vs. Anatomical-paradigms. To illustrate these paradigms, we compare a Theoretical-paradigm paper (MacKay & James, 2001) with an Anatomical-paradigm paper (Schmolck, Stefanacci, & Squire, 2000): These papers report virtually identical experiments on relations between language, memory, and hippocampal systems, using the same task (the detection and explanation of ambiguities in sentences that participants know are ambiguous), virtually identical ambiguous sentences, and at least one identical participant (the amnesic HM). However, MacKay and James made strik ingly different claims from Schmolck et aI., and we show that the Schmolck et a!. claims comport not with their data but with an unstated theory to which they are implicitly committed within the Anatomical-paradigm. © 2001 Academic Press Cognitive neuropsychology is currently following two fundamentally different par adigms or metatheoretical approaches: the Theoretical- vs. Anatomical-paradigms. To illustrate these paradigms, we contrast two recent studies that examine relations between language, memory, and hippocampal systems: MacKay and James (2001