All parahippocampal areas were maximally engaged for the most remote memories and patterns of activity were comparable between the (A) LEC and PER and (B) the MEC and POR. Furthermore, in line with the existence of stronger projections from the amygdala to the PER and LEC than to the POR and MEC, and a more important role of the cortical areas for the most remote memories than for more recent ones, the levels of activity in the PER and the LEC were higher than those in the POR and MEC during the retrieval of very remote memories, providing further support to an emerging theory according to which the parahippocampal areas might be segregated in terms of memory types/processes rather than in terms of information content (spatial versus spatial information; Eichenbaum et al., 2007; of note, for the sake of clarity, significant area differences between graphs A and B are not shown). (C) Contribution of the hippocampal CAs and parahippocampal region to memory retrieval over time: when CA1 and CA3 activity levels are not dissociated, the overall contribution of the hippocampus to the retrieval of very remote memories is largely underestimated when compared to that of CA1 shown in Figure 3A. Even in this case though, the hippocampus is still significantly recruited at all times. In contrast, overall activity of the parahippocampal region is comparable to that of any of the parahippocampal areas, with a maximal activation during the retrieval of very remote memories (see Figure 5A and B). These results underline the need of dissociating CA1 and CA3 activity patterns to better understand the contribution of the hippocampus to the retrieval of memory over time. Importantly, when these contributions are not dissociated, the apparent over-time shift remains relative at most (and not absolute) since both areas are significantly activated at all delays. Error bars are mean ± SEM. ‘o’ indicate a significant comparison to 0 at p<0.05; asterisks a t-test at p<0.05 for ‘*’ and at p<0.01 for ‘***’.