Aggleton & Brown have built a convincing case that hippocampus-related circuits may be involved in thalamic amnesia. It remains to be established, however, that their model represents a distinct neurological system, that the distinction between recall and familiarity captures the roles of these pathways in episodic memory, or that there are no other systems that contribute to the signs of amnesia associated with thalamic disease.

Connectionism can provide useful theories in which consciousness is the exclusive vehicle of explicit representation. The theories may not, however, handle some phenomena adequately: sense of agency, modes and contents of awareness, propositional and deliberative thought, metacognitive awareness and consciousness of self. They should, however, be useful in describing automatic, activational relations among nonpropositional conscious contents.

The EEG and MEG studies cited in the target article found reduced gamma band power following pseudowords in comparison with words. Pulvermüller interprets this power difference in terms of reverberating lexical cell assemblies. An alternative interpretation in terms of latency jitter in the gamma band following pseudowords is proposed that does not appeal to lexical cell assemblies.

The heated debate over whether there is only a single mechanism or two mechanisms for morphology has diverted valuable research energy away from the more critical questions about the neural computations involved in the comprehension and production of morphologically complex forms. Cognitive neuroscience data implicate many brain areas. All extant models, whether they rely on a connectionist network or espouse two mechanisms, are too underspecified to explain why more than a few brain areas differ in their activity during the processing of regular and irregular forms. No one doubts that the brain treats regular and irregular words differently, but brain data indicate that a simplistic account will not do. It is time for us to search for the critical factors free from theoretical blinders.

The idea of distinct brain systems for the processing of episodic and other forms of memory is welcome. The two brain systems actually proposed however, appear to be stripped of further existing connections and could be integrated with one another. If integrating them, it seems more logical to propose one enlarged system of limbic structures whose individual components make partly different contributions to the forms of memory under discussion.

A thorough distinction between explanatory and descriptive concepts reveals a radical explanatory and a trivial descriptive doctrine in current neuroscientific research. The explanatory approach examines the neuronal substrates of the mind, whereas the descriptive one deals only with its correlates.

Deciding where to look is a very complicated process, but deciding when to look is probably much simpler. Once the brain is certain of where it wants to look, the saccade-generating pathway may simply start autonomously. Higher cognitive areas of the brain can only override this automatic start by preventing all saccades. Hence, the brain has no ability to say when to go; it can only say “go there” or “stay here.”

According to “imaginability arguments,” given any explanation of the physiological correlates of consciousness, it remains imaginable that all elements of that explanation could occur without consciousness, which thus remains unexplained. The O'Brien & Opie connectionist approach effectively shows that perspicuous explanations can bridge this explanatory gap, but bringing in other issues – for example, involving biology and emotion – would facilitate going much further in this direction. A major problem is the ambiguity of the term “representation.” Bridging the gap requires perspicuously explaining not just how we form “representations” in the sense of outputs isomorphic to what is represented, but also what makes representations conscious; I sketch briefly what this would entail.

The postulate that events in peripheral vision enhance activity in the “fixate center” is called into question. An alternative explanation is used to account for the “remote distractor effect.” It is pointed out that a critical element of the model is missing.

For language to function we clearly need two formal ordering principles: lexical entries and rules. Clahsen's target article provides multiple empirical evidence for this distinction, but this may be simply to overconfirm the undeniable and to overlook the hidden motor of language use and language development, namely, function. Since at least 1859, linguists have argued for the primacy of function, and these arguments are worth rediscovering today.

First, it is not clear from Gold & Stoljar's definition of biological neuroscience whether it includes computational and representational concepts. If so, then their evaluation of Kandel's theory is problematic. If not, then a more direct refutation of the radical neuron doctrine is available. Second, objections to the psychological sciences might derive not just from the conflation of the radical and the trivial neuron doctrines. There might also be the implicit belief that, for many mental phenomena, adequate theories must invoke neurophysiological concepts and cannot be purely psychological.

A connectionist vehicle theory of consciousness needs to disambiguate its criteria for identifying the relevant vehicles. Moreover, a vehicle theory may appear entirely arbitrary in sorting between what are typically thought of as conscious and unconscious processes.

The idea of representing words with cell assemblies is very appealing. However, syntactic sequences need to be represented as well. This cannot be done by using the activity levels of assemblies. Instead, structural relations and operations between assemblies are needed to achieve serial order in syntactic word strings.

A hippocampal patient is described who shows preserved item recognition and simple recognition-based recollection but impaired recall and associative recognition. These data and other evidence suggest that contrary to Aggleton & Brown's target article, Papez circuit damage impairs only complex item-item-context recollection. A patient with perirhinal cortex damage and a delayed global memory deficit, apparently inconsistent with A&B's framework, is also described.

In this response to multidisciplinary commentaries on the target article, “Words in the brain's language,” additional features of the cell-assembly model are reviewed, as demanded by some of the commentators. Subsequently, methodological considerations on how to perform additional tests of neurobiological language models as well as a discussion of recent data from neuroimaging, neuropsychological, and other behavioral studies in speakers of spoken and sign languages follow. Special emphasis is put on the explanatory power of the cell-assembly model regarding neuropsychological double dissociations. Future perspectives on neural network simulations, neuronal mechanisms of syntax and semantics, and the interaction of attention mechanisms and cell assemblies are pointed out in the final paragraphs.

Recent studies of Italian past definite and past participle forms show that human performance with regular and irregular inflections is not dissociated as Clahsen's model would predict. Some performance profiles, accounted for by dual-mechanism models in terms of an underlying symbol-manipulating combinatorial procedure, are generated in Italian by the higher learnability and generalizability of phonologically regular morphological processes.

This commentary reviews recent evidence that some hippo- campal functions do not depend on perirhinal inputs and discusses how the multiple-process model of recognition may shed interpretive light on previous reports of DNMS reacquisition deficits in pretrained subjects with hippocampal damage. Suggestions are made for determining whether nonhuman subjects solve object-recognition tasks using recollective memory or familiarity judgments.

The privileged position of neural activity in biological neuroscience might be justified on the grounds of the nonlinear and all-or-none character of neural firing. To justify the neuron doctrine in cognitive neuroscience and make it both plausible and radical, we must consider the supervenience of elementary mental properties such as qualia on neural activity.

The theoretical framework laid out by Findlay & Walker has direct implications for central topics in research on saccades in reading and other cognitive activities and these in turn may also have implications to be considered in the context of Findlay & Walker's model. The present commentary focuses on the problem of selecting a target for a saccade. It is argued that there are indirect and direct top-down influences on this process and that direct influences are not adequately represented in Findlay & Walker's theory.

Discrimination of forms defined solely by color and discrimination of hue are dissociated in cerebral achromatopsia. Both must be based on potentially explicit information derived from differentially color-sensitive photoreceptors, yet only one gives rise to phenomenal experience of color. By analogy, visual information may be used to form explicit representations for action without giving rise to any phenomenal experience other than that of making the action.