We investigate the potential for using latency-based measures of retrieval processing capacity to assess changes in perfomance specific to individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a reliable precursor state to Alzheimer's Disease. Use of these capacity measures is motivated in part by exploration of the effects of atrophy on a computational model of a basic hippocampal circuit. We use this model to suggest that capacity may be a more sensitive indicator of undelying atrophy than speed of processing, and test this hypothesis by adapting a standard behavioral measure of memory (the free and cued selective reminding test, FCSRT) to allow for the collection of cued recall latencies. Participants were drawn from five groups: college-aged, middle-aged, healthy elderly, those with a diagnosis of MCI, and a sample of MCI control participants. The measure of capacity is shown to offer increased classificatory sensitivity relative to the standard behavioral measures, and is also shown to be the behavioral measure that correlated most strongly with hippocampal volume.Since the time of Ebbinghaus (1885), the study of memory has been guided by numerous conceptualizations and metaphors for what memory is and does (see, e.g., Kandel, Schwartz & Jessell, 2000;Neath & Suprenant, 2003;Roediger, 1980;Spear, 1978). Although there are numerous differences among these views, a common thread is that a comprehensive understanding of memory functioning requires consideration of four aspects of memory functioning: encoding, consolidation, retention, and expression (retrieval). Within that consensus view, however, there does exist a critical dichotomy. Specifically, aspects of encoding, consolidation, retention, and expression have typically been considered either in terms of the information involved or in terms of the processes that operate on that information (see, e.g., Kolers & Roediger, 1984; Massaro, 1998;O'Toole, Wenger & Townsend, 2001;Roediger, Gallo & Geraci, 2002;Wenger, 1999). Typically, the conceptual distinction has been © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Correspondence: M. J. Wenger, Department of Psychology, 216 Moore Building, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park PA 16802, mjw19@psu.edu.. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. This same dichotomy has also characterized much of the research on life-span changes in memory, with respect to both changes associated with normal development and aging, and changes associated with impairments or disease states (see in particular Cerella & Hale, 1994;Kail & Salthouse, 1994;Petersen, Smith, Ivnik,...