Introduction

Long-term memory functions as a vast store of information and a repository of prior

experiences, in accordance with diverse theoretical perspectives. It would be difficult to argue
that every average person has a large, if not immaculate or exhaustive, collection of long-term
memories at their disposal (Cowan, 2008). Long-term memory organises information into
smaller units, reducing the stress on working memory (Ericsson and Kintsch, 1995).

Semantic memory is memory for actual facts that has been gained but lacks particular
'time and place' information about the source of the original experience. Encyclopaedic
knowledge of information such as object characteristics (e.g., mangoes are usually yellow),
categories (e.g., cucumbers and carrots are both types of vegetables), historical events,
mathematical tables, cognitive maps, and other similar types of information are thought to be
stored in the brain's semantic memory systems (Dickerson & Eichenbaum, 2010).

The ability to learn, store, and retrieve knowledge regarding distinct personal experiences
that occur in daily life including the temporal and spatial context in which they occurred is
referred to as episodic memory (Skike et al., 2019). These recollections usually include
information regarding the time and location of an event, and other details about the event itself.
The capacity to describe the events of a recent festive gathering or professional meeting, for
example that occurred in the preceding weeks or months is significantly reliant on intact episodic
memory function (Dickerson & Eichenbaum, 2010).
 This distinction is based on Tulving's (1972) seminal work, which developed a dual-
process theory of memory, positing that episodic and semantic memories are independent
systems. However, the controversy about the independence of these memory systems continues,
and researchers continue to investigate the intricacies of their interaction. This critical discussion
will look at relevant theories and empirical evidence to determine if episodic and semantic
memory exists as distinct entities within the context of long-term memory. There are multiple
theories and evidence supporting the idea that long-term memory consists of separate episodic
and semantic memory systems. One of the influential theories in this regard is proposed by
Tulving, who posits that episodic memory and semantic memory are distinct systems within
long-term memory.

Tulving's Dual-Process Theory

According to Tulving's influential dual-process theory, episodic memory and semantic

memory are independent systems with unique roles (Greenberg, & Verfaellie, 2010). The two
kinds of memory differ in the kind of conscious experience they involve: episodic memory
requires recollection of a prior experience, but semantic memory does not (Tulving, 1985).
Tulving added the Encoding Specificity Principle to his theory, claiming that retrieval cues are
most effective when they match the conditions present during encoding. When applied to
episodic and semantic memory, this concept argues that context is important in episodic recall
but less important in semantic memory retrieval.

Neuroimaging Research

Neuroimaging research has provided important insights into the brain bases of episodic
and semantic memory. Studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and
positron emission tomography (PET) have revealed separate brain areas associated with each
form of memory. The hippocampus, which is important for episodic memory, is more active
during tasks that require remembrance of personal experiences. In contrast, the front temporal
lobe is involved in semantic memory processing.

Case Studies in Neuropsychology

The distinction of episodic and semantic memory is supported by studies of people with
selective brain injury. Individuals with hippocampal loss, such as those with medial temporal
lobe lesions, frequently have specific abnormalities in episodic memory while preserving
relatively intact semantic memory. This distinction lends credence to the notion that these
memory systems rely on unique brain bases. Patients with medial temporal lobe (MTL) damage
have substantial episodic memory impairment that impairs both anterograde and retrograde
memory: They have little or no ability to develop new episodic memories, and they have a
premorbid episodic memory impairment that can range from several years to many decades
(Bayley, et al., 2006). Except for knowledge acquired in the short premorbid period, MTL
amnesiacs' premorbid semantic memory is substantially intact. This divergence supports the
episodic-semantic divide, implying that episodic memory normally relies on MTL structures,
whereas semantic memories, once consolidated, rely on the neocortex (Manns, Hopkins, &
Squire, 2003).

Studies of Semantic Dementia (SD)

Semantic Dementia (SD) is a variant of front-temporal dementia. Patients with SD have

progressive neocortical degeneration, notably in the anterolateral temporal lobe, as well as
progressive semantic memory degradation. They struggle with verbal identification of stimuli,
frequently using superordinate names (Hodges et al., 1995). In contrast, while not normal,
episodic memory and the MTL are not as badly damaged (Chan et al., 2001; Graham & Hodges,
1997). As a result, patients with SD exhibit a broad and severe impairment in semantic memory
but relatively unimpaired episodic memory—basically, the complement of the deficiency in
MTL amnesia.

When researchers look into the neuropsychology of episodic and semantic memory, they
typically focus on dissociations. This means they examine scenarios in which one form of
memory is impaired while the other is relatively intact. This strategy is consistent with a long-
standing history in neuropsychology and has proven to be extremely effective. Nevertheless,
Researchers have investigated how a decrease in semantic memory affects the retrieval of
episodic memories when researching autobiographical memory in semantic dementia (SD).
While early study suggested that personal memories were intact in SD, further research has
demonstrated that these memories frequently lack particular details (Piolino et al., 2003).

Interdependency of Memory Systems

Contrarily, memory theorists have historically adopted a broader perspective. Some

scholars propose that the two types of memory, episodic and semantic, don't operate
independently but rather exert influence on each other in meaningful and theoretically significant
ways. Tulving (1972), in his original essay, noted that obtaining a new episodic memory, like in
paired associate learning, can be impacted by information stored in semantic memory, such as
the association strength between two words. This idea was further developed in the SPI model,
which suggests a serial encoding process, where information moves from the perceptual system
to semantic memory before being encoded into episodic memory. However, an opposing
argument is presented by Simons, Graham, & Hodges (2002).

The SPI model also asserts parallel storage of information, enabling independent
retrieval. This model outlines diverse interdependencies for encoding, storage, and retrieval.
Baddeley (1988) offers a different perspective, proposing that semantic memory might be
“accumulated residue" of various learning episodes, implying that it contains information
abstracted and dissociated from its original spatiotemporal contexts. Whereas Reder et al., (2009)
suggests that episodic memories rely on the connection of semantic concepts to the context in
which they appear, whether general or specific.

In simpler terms, this model argues that episodic memory entails collaboration between
semantic memory and contextual information (Mayes & Roberts, 2001). In summary, various
theorists hold differing views on the interdependence of episodic and semantic memory.
Nonetheless, there is a widespread acknowledgment that such interdependence exists, as noted
by Tulving (1983), who highlighted its variable nature.

Researchers focused on how remembering personal experiences (episodic memory) helps

us pick up general knowledge (semantic memory). In cases where people have memory issues
(amnesia) due to damage in the brain's memory center (Medial Temporal Lobe), learning new
general knowledge becomes difficult. However, some methods, like using different examples
and errorless learning, seem to help. Interestingly, some patients with early memory issues can
still learn a lot, while others cannot. Even when patients with memory issues learn new things,
it's often slow and specific, not well-connected to what they already know (Kan, et al., 2009).

There's a debate about whether medial temporal lobe (MTL) is crucial for this type of
learning or if damaged MTL can still manage without remembering personal experiences.
According to one perspective, when the memory center is damaged, the learning of new general
knowledge is either impaired or completely stopped. However, the researchers suggest fully
intact semantic information can serve as a framework or foundation for learning new episodic
information. Evidence from dyslexia, SD, and aphasia supports this viewpoint, demonstrating
that disruption of this semantic framework hinders the formation of new episodic memories, at
least in the verbal modality (Graham, et al., 2000; Kinsbourne, et al., 1991; Ween, et al., 1996).
 Moreover, episodic memory helps us recall general knowledge (semantic memory) by
giving us a structured way to access it. However, in cases of amnesia where there's damage to the
medial temporal lobe (MTL), this structured recall is disrupted because the ability to retrieve
specific memories is compromised (Greenberg et al., 2009). Such results showed that these
forms of memory can also interact at encoding and retrieval level.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the delicate dance between episodic and semantic memory systems reveals
an intriguing dependency that goes beyond Tulving's basic dual-process hypothesis. While some
theories and empirical data support the assumption that episodic and semantic memories operate
as separate systems, the larger picture recognizes their significant and dynamic partnership. As
we've looked into the neurological, neuropsychological, and theoretical aspects, it's clear that
these memory systems are not isolated entities. Their interaction is complex, influencing
encoding, storage, and retrieval processes. From the serial encoding of the SPI model to
Baddeley's concept of semantic memory as "accumulated residue," the various approaches
emphasize the subtle interplay between episodic and semantic memory. As researchers continue
to explore the complexities of human memory, it is obvious that comprehension is essential.
Understanding the interdependence of these systems is critical for knowing the richness and
complexity of our cognitive environment. So far, the evidence implies that memory types are
interdependent at every stage of the process, from encoding to retrieval. Neuropsychological case
studies will remain critical in efforts to address these difficulties (Greenberg, & Verfaellie,
2010).
 References

Bayley, P. J., Hopkins, R. O., & Squire, L. R. (2006). The fate of old memories after medial
temporal lobe damage. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(51), 13311-13317.Dickerson, B. C., &
Eichenbaum, H. (2010). The episodic memory system: neurocircuitry and
disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology, 35(1), 86-104.

Baddeley, A. (1988). Cognitive psychology and human memory. Trends in neurosciences, 11(4),
176-181.

Chan, D., Fox, N. C., Scahill, R. I., Crum, W. R., Whitwell, J. L., Leschziner, G., ... & Rossor,
M. N. (2001). Patterns of temporal lobe atrophy in semantic dementia and Alzheimer's
disease. Annals of neurology, 49(4), 433-442.

Cowan, N. (2008). What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working
memory?. Progress in brain research, 169, 323-338.

Ericsson KA, Kintsch W. Long-term working memory. Psychol. Rev 1995;102:211–245.

[PubMed: 7740089]

Graham, K. S., & Hodges, J. R. (1997). Differentiating the roles of the hippocampus complex
and the neocortex in long-term memory storage: Evidence from the study of semantic
dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychology, 11(1), 77.

Graham, K. S., Simons, J. S., Pratt, K. H., Patterson, K., & Hodges, J. R. (2000). Insights from
semantic dementia on the relationship between episodic and semantic
memory. Neuropsychologia, 38(3), 313-324.

Greenberg, D. L., & Verfaellie, M. (2010). Interdependence of episodic and semantic memory:
Evidence from neuropsychology. Journal of the International Neuropsychological
society, 16(5), 748-753.
Greenberg, D. L., Keane, M. M., Ryan, L., & Verfaellie, M. (2009). Impaired category fluency
in medial temporal lobe amnesia: The role of episodic memory. Journal of
Neuroscience, 29(35), 10900-10908.

Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (1995). Semantic Memory. Memory, 3(3/4), 463-495.

Kan, I. P., Alexander, M. P., & Verfaellie, M. (2009). Contribution of prior semantic knowledge
to new episodic learning in amnesia. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(5), 938-944.

Kinsbourne, M., Rufo, D. T., Gamzu, E., Palmer, R. L., & Berliner, A. K. (1991).
Neuropsychological deficits in adults with dyslexia. Developmental Medicine & Child
Neurology, 33(9), 763-775.

Manns, J. R., Hopkins, R. O., & Squire, L. R. (2003). Semantic memory and the human
hippocampus. Neuron, 38(1), 127-133.

Mayes, A. R., & Roberts, N. (2001). Theories of episodic memory. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 356(1413), 1395-1408.

Piolino, P., Desgranges, B., Belliard, S., Matuszewski, V., Lalevée, C., De La Sayette, V., &
Eustache, F. (2003). Autobiographical memory and autonoetic consciousness: triple
dissociation in neurodegenerative diseases. Brain, 126(10), 2203-2219.

Reder, L. M., Park, H., & Kieffaber, P. D. (2009). Memory systems do not divide on
consciousness: Reinterpreting memory in terms of activation and binding. Psychological
bulletin, 135(1), 23.

Thompson, V. A., Evans, J. S. B. T., & Frankish, K. (2009). Dual process theories: A
metacognitive perspective. Ariel, 137, 51-43.

Van Skike, C. E., Goodlett, C., & Matthews, D. B. (2019). Acute alcohol and cognition:
Remembering what it causes us to forget. Alcohol, 79, 105-125.

Ween, J. E., Verfaellie, M., & Alexander, M. P. (1996). Verbal memory function in mild
aphasia. Neurology, 47(3), 795-801.