Today”, and remains a central problem now, more than 17 years later. 5.2.2. Memory Deficits for Episodic and Semantic Details: An Alternate Account In accordance with Duff and Brown-Schmidt [59], the language deficits of amnesics are side effects of their episodic and semantic memory deficits. Because this hypothesis is relevant to H.M.’s CC violations and other language deficits, we thus discuss the general plausibility from the Duff Brown-Schmidt hypothesis and its related evidence. 5.two.2.1. Proof Constant with all the Duff Brown-Schmidt Hypothesis Duff and Brown-Schmidt [59] suggested that a separate (non-linguistic) episodic memory program underpins language use, specifically the creative retrieval and binding of visual and linguistic data. Proof for this hypothesis came from errors within the two-person communication game inBrain Sci. 2013,Duff et al. [4], where amnesics and memory-normal controls were forced to repeatedly go over the identical objects: As opposed to the controls, the amnesics often violated a CC by using a rather than the to describe previously discussed objects. Because the Duff et al. [4] amnesics by definition had episodic memory problems, Duff et al. consequently assumed that their episodic memory challenges involving non-linguistic “information concerning the co-occurrences of folks, places, and objects as well as the spatial, temporal, and interactional relations amongst them” caused their a-for-the substitutions (p. 672). Nonetheless, the Duff Brown-Schmidt hypothesis will not adequately explain H.M.’s determiner errors for the reason that: (a) mentioning previously discussed objects or episodes was unnecessary on the TLC (unlike in [4]); (b) H.M. made no extra encoding errors for athe than for other order BAY-876 determiners (e.g., this, some) that happen to be a-historic and independent of episodic memory (see Table 4); and (c) all of H.M.’s athe errors involved omission of a or the (see Table 4), instead of substitution of one particular for the other (as in [4]). Of course, H.M.’s PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338877 difficulties with determiners besides athe could 
reflect generalized avoidance of troubles caused by a and the beneath the Duff et al. [4] hypothesis. Even so, generalized avoidance predicts underuse of determiners relative to controls, an outcome not observed in MacKay et al. [2], and fails to predict the noun omissions that generally followed H.M.’s (appropriately made) determiners (see Table four). five.2.2.2. General Plausibility from the Duff Brown-Schmidt Hypothesis Viewing non-linguistic episodic and semantic memory systems as central to the “creative use of language” and explaining language deficits in amnesia as on account of deficits in non-linguistic declarative memory systems for retrieving and binding visual and linguistic facts faces 5 challenges around the road to becoming a theory. First, in depth evidence indicates that H.M.’s standard dilemma lies not in retrieving pre-encoded data but in encoding or representing information anew (see Study 1; Study 2C; [2,24]). Second, vision-language bindings had been not problematic for H.M. generally: Contrary for the Duff and Brown-Schmidt hypothesis, H.M. exhibited no difficulties when encoding vision-language bindings involving the gender, individual, and variety of the referents for appropriate names. Third, H.M.’s issues with language-language bindings (involving pronoun-antecedent, modifier-common noun, verb-modifier, auxiliary-main verb, verb-object, subject-verb, propositional, and correlative CCs): (a) closely resembled his vision-language binding.