It is well established that the hippocampus is critical for memory. Recent evidence suggests that one function of hippocampal memory processing is to optimize how people actively explore the world. Here we demonstrate that the link between the hippocampus and exploration extends even to the moment-to-moment use of eye movements during visuospatial memory encoding. In Experiment 1, we examined relationships between study-phase eye movements in healthy individuals and subsequent performance on a spatial reconstruction test. In addition to quantitative measures of viewing behaviors (e.g., how many fixations or saccades were deployed during study), we used the information–theoretic measure of entropy to assess the amount of randomness or disorganization in participants' scanning behaviors. We found that the use of scanpaths during study that were lower in entropy (e.g., more organized, less random) predicted more accurate spatial reconstruction both within and between participants. Scanpath entropy was a better predictor of reconstruction accuracy than were the quantitative measures of viewing. In Experiment 2, we found that individuals with hippocampal amnesia tended to engage in viewing patterns that were higher in entropy (less organized) relative to healthy comparisons. These findings reveal a critical role of the hippocampus in guiding eye movement exploration to optimize visuospatial relational memory.

Familiarity and recollection are qualitatively different explicit-memory phenomena evident during recognition testing. Investigations of the neurocognitive substrates of familiarity and recollection, however, have typically disregarded implicit-memory processes likely to be engaged during recognition tests. We reasoned that differential neural responses to old and new items in a recognition test may reflect either explicit or implicit memory. Putative neural correlates of familiarity in prior experiments, for example, may actually reflect contamination by implicit memory. In two experiments, we used obscure words that subjects could not formally define to tease apart electrophysiological correlates of familiarity and one form of implicit memory, conceptual priming. In Experiment 1, conceptual priming was observed for words only if they elicited meaningful associations. In Experiment 2, two distinct neural signals were observed in conjunction with familiarity-based recognition: late posterior potentials for words that both did and did not elicit meaningful associations and FN400 potentials only for the former. Given that symbolic meaning is a prerequisite for conceptual priming, the combined results specifically link late posterior potentials and FN400 potentials with familiarity and conceptual priming, respectively. These findings contradict previous interpretations of FN400 potentials as generic signals of familiarity and show that repeated stimuli in recognition tests can engender facilitated processing of conceptual information in addition to retrieval processing that leads to the awareness of memory retrieval. The different characteristics of the electrical markers of these two types of process further underscore the biological validity of the distinction between implicit memory and explicit memory.

Stenberg et al. argued that FN400 brain potentials index familiarity rather than conceptual priming. Their data from a test of name recognition showed that both familiarity and FN400s were influenced by frequency but not fame, whereas separate behavioral measures of priming were influenced by fame but not frequency. However, this apparent dissociation was gravely weakened by confounds in task demands and inadequate behavioral measures of priming. Although Stenberg et al. failed to provide evidence suitable for disentangling neural correlates of familiarity from those of conceptual priming, an analysis of their report can be used to highlight difficulties that remain to be surmounted to understand recognition and the neural events that signal distinct memory functions engaged during recognition.