Abstract
In his comment on Nyberg and Tulving's (1996) article, Shanks (this issue) argues that the dissociation evidence we presented for the multiple memory systems approach is weak. In this reply, we consider his comments, discuss some inconsistencies in his arguments, and note that he seems to have overlooked some of our points. We maintain our position that dissociation evidence constitutes one important source of support for separate memory systems, and we argue that converging evidence from dissociation studies and functional neuroimaging studies strongly indicates the existence of multiple human memory systems.
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
