Table 1.

Key evidence (across species) for the primary claims of the MMSS framework.

Claim	Region	Evidence Strength	Primary Evidence	Key Citations
The same memory structure can support opposing computations	Hippocampus	***	CA3 (TSP) supports a pattern-separated code CA1 (MSP) supports an integrated code	Lee et al (2004)1 Molitor et al (2021)2
	Striatum	***	DLS activity marks “boundaries” between action sequences DMS activity ramps up until decision is executed	Thorn et al (2010)1 Vandaele et al (2021)1
	Amygdala	**	BLA facilitates learning of stimulus-outcome links CeA facilitates motivational responses/behavioral output	Sias et al (2021)1 Fadok et al (2017)1
The same memory structure can support both “specific” and “general” memory representations	Hippocampus	***	TSP can support episodic memory (specific) MSP can support statistical learning (general)	Schlichting et al (2014)2 Schapiro et al (2017)3 Schlichting et al (2021)2
	Striatum	**	DMS can support goal-directed behavior (specific) DLS can support habits (general)	McNamee et al (2015)2 Turner et al (2022)1
	Amygdala	*	BLA supports specific Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer (PIT) CeA supports general PIT	Corbit & Balleine (2005)1 Prévost et al (2012)2
Similar mnemonic computations are supported by distinct structures	Hippocampus & Striatum	***	Hippocampus (subregion unspecified) and DMS: jointly involved in learning specific associations in context of spatial learning	DeCoteau et al (2007)1 Brown et al (2012)2
	Hippocampus & Amygdala	***	Hippocampus (subregion unspecified) and BLA: facilitate specific associations in context of episodic/episodic-like memory	Bass et al (2014)1 Inman et al (2018)2
	Striatum & Amygdala	***	BLA and DMS: support learning specific stimulus-response-outcome associations CeA and DLS: support formation of general habit memories	Corbit et al (2013)1 Lingawi & Balleine (2012)1

Evidence Type:

¹Rodent;

²Human;

³Neural network model