Table 1.

Performance of GP

		Experiment 2
Experiment 1			a	b	Experiment 3
Percent of original area (%)	55.2	Closer (%)	0	50	EP	5.7
		Same (%)	100	21	SD	2.4
Accuracy (1 – 5)	1.3	Farther (%)	0	29	SPA	1.4
					TEA	1.3
Memory accuracy	65.0	Memory accuracy	50	56	Memory (no. of details)	3.8

Performance of patient GP, who has large medial temporal lobe lesions and virtually complete damage to the hippocampus bilaterally. In Experiment 1, like the hippocampal patients (Fig. 1 A and B), GP exhibited intact boundary extension (i.e., he drew the objects smaller than they had originally appeared) and also did not reproduce the photographs accurately. In Experiment 2a, GP always rated the second scene as the same as the first scene and was poor at remembering the scenes (compare with Fig. 2 A and B). In the second version of the same task (Experiment 2b), he performed like hippocampal patients (Fig. 2 C and D). That is, he exhibited intact boundary extension (i.e., he tended to rate the second scene as closer up more often than farther away in comparison with the first scene), and he was also poor at remembering the scenes. In Experiment 3, GP imagined what might come into view if he could see beyond the boundaries of photographs. His narratives were segmented into details and classified as belonging to one of four categories: entities present (EP), sensory descriptions (SD), spatial references (SPA), and thoughts/emotions/actions (TEA).