Critiquing the communication of science

I wanted to write about research from my alma mater; research examining links between brain function and memory.  I was excited when I first found this press release from the communications staff at The University of Western Ontario announcing that UWO researchers will have their work published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS, he, he… get it?). 

But, I don’t have a good grasp of what the research actually demonstrates, at least not from the press release.  Consider that the writer chose this quote from Professor Kohler to help explain to readers what his research has found:

“Recognition based on familiarity can be contrasted with recognition when we spontaneously conjure up details about the episode in which we encountered the person before, such as where we met the person before and when it happened.”

I can’t think of a more obtuse way of saying memories of a person come from a different place in the brain than the memories of meeting them.  Is my paraphrasing an oversimplification?  Maybe, but the details that are omitted for simplicity aren’t as important as your central message, which otherwise gets lost in the pursuit of accuracy. 

I’d be happy if anyone could provide a clearer statement of what these fellows’ research actually entails.  I could ask them myself, but I’m not sure Dr. Kohler would be of much assistance.