Several models have proposed that different medial temporal lobe (MTL) regions represent different kinds of information in the service of long-term memory. For instance, it has been proposed that perirhinal cortex (PRC), parahippocampal cortex (PHC), and hippocampus differentially support long-term memory for item information, spatial context, and item-context relations present during an event, respectively. Recent evidence has indicated that, in addition to long-term memory, MTL subregions may similarly contribute to processes that support the retention of complex spatial arrangements of objects across short delays. Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging and multivoxel pattern similarity analysis to investigate the extent to which human MTL regions independently code for object and spatial information, as well as the conjunction of this information, during working memory encoding and active maintenance. Voxel activity patterns in PRC, temporopolar cortex, and amygdala carried information about individual objects, whereas activity patterns in the PHC and posterior hippocampus carried information about the configuration of spatial locations that was to be remembered. Additionally, the integrity of multivoxel patterns in the right anterior hippocampus across encoding and delay periods was predictive of accurate short-term memory for object-location relationships. These results are consistent with parallel processing of item and spatial context information by PRC and PHC, respectively, and the binding of item and context by the hippocampus.

INTRODUCTION: Recent work challenged past findings that documented relational memory impairments in autism. Previous studies often relied solely on explicit behavioral responses to assess relational memory integrity, but successful performance on behavioral tasks may rely on other cognitive abilities (e.g., executive functioning) that are impacted in some autistic individuals. Eye-tracking tasks do not require explicit behavioral responses, and, further, eye movements provide an indirect measure of memory. The current study examined whether memory-specific viewing patterns toward scenes differ between autistic and non-autistic individuals. METHODS: Using a long-term memory paradigm that equated for complexity between item and relational memory tasks, participants studied a series of scenes. Following the initial study phase, scenes were re-presented, accompanied by an orienting question that directed participants to attend to either features of an item (i.e., in the item condition) or spatial relationships between items (i.e., in the relational condition) that might be subsequently modified during test. At test, participants viewed scenes that were unchanged (i.e., repeated from study), scenes that underwent an item modification (an exemplar switch) or a relational modification (a location switch), and scenes that had not been presented before. Eye movements were recorded throughout. RESULTS: During study, there were no significant group differences in viewing directed to regions of scenes that might be manipulated at test, suggesting comparable processing of scene details during encoding. However, there was a group difference in explicit recognition accuracy for scenes that underwent a relational change. Marginal group differences in the expression of memory-based viewing effects during test for relational scenes were consistent with this behavioral outcome, particularly when analyses were limited to scenes recognized correctly with high confidence. Group differences were also evident in correlational analyses that examined the association between study phase viewing and recognition accuracy and between performance on the Picture Sequence Memory Test and recognition accuracy. DISCUSSION: Together, our findings suggest differences in the integrity of relational memory representations and/or in the relationships between subcomponents of memory in autism.