Abstract
ABSTRACT Steinkrauss and Slotnick (this issue) argue against hippocampal involvement in implicit memory, bringing up some important considerations. Their critique, however, exhibits significant flaws. The argumentation is based on an ill-defined key concept of ‘implicit memory,’ and important theoretical context is missed. Potential confounds are brought to bear against a rather narrow selection of studies, often without explaining how exactly the studies are biased. Refining the conceptual scope, including a broader range of literature, and arguing more inclusively would provide more nuanced insights into the hippocampus’s role in implicit memory.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
