Congitive

Question 1

Corkin (1997)
aim:

Answer 1

to investigate the extent of the hipocampal and medial temporal lobe damage to H.M’s brain and if the damage was enough to justify his memory loss

Question 2

Corkin (1997)
method:

Answer 2

• HM took an IQ test and memory test before he…
• MRI scan on HM in 1992
• MRI scan on HM in 1993

Question 3

Corkin (1997)
results:

Answer 3

• tests showed an average IQ but the memory test results where 37 points lower, this proved HM’s amnesa
• 3cm smaller cutting of the Hippocampus
• Hippocampus 50% smaller with right side being shrucken, possibly due to drugs and epliepsy

Question 4

Corkin (1997)
conclusion:

Answer 4

the small Hippocampus in HM’s brain was too small to support new memories

Question 5

Landry & Barting (2011)
aim:

Answer 5

to investigate if artiticulatory suppression would influence the recall of a written list

Question 6

Landry and Barting (2011)
method:

Answer 6

-independant sample, 34 psych uni undergrad students
- control group and experimental group both had to memorise the same 7 letter orders 10 times
- control group had 5 seconds to look at the letters, a 5 second break and could then write the order on an answer sheet
- experimental group had to recount “1,2” at a second rate while looking at the letters (articulatory suppression) and then wrote them down

Question 7

Landry & Bartling (2011)
results:

Answer 7

• control average sucess: 76%
• experimental average sucess: 45%
• control deviation: 0.13
• experimental deviation: 0.14

Question 8

Landry & Barling (2011)
conclusion:

Answer 8

the phonological loop was overstimulated thanks to the articulory supression making the information harder to process for the experimental group

Question 9

Glanzer and Cuntiz (1966)
aim:

Answer 9

to investigate if the interval of time between information would effect the recall capabilities

Question 10

glanzer and Cuntiz (1966)
method:

Answer 10

• 240 army inlisted men (independant samples)
• made to memorise 8 20 word long lists (one syllable words, the lists where the same for everyone)
• 3 second gap
• 3 second gap repeated twice
• 6 second gap
• 6 second gap repeated twice
• 9 second gap
• 9 second gap repeated twice
  after being shown the words they had 2 minutes to write down the words in any order

Question 11

Glanzer and Cuntiz (1966)
results:

Answer 11

• increase in memorisation sucess with more time not including the end of the list
• repetion only increased sucess in the 3 second bracket

Question 12

Glanzer and Cuntiz (1966)
conclusion:

Answer 12

the primary effect is effected by rehearsal and more time given allows more rehersal

Question 13

Shallice and Warrington (1970)
aim:

Answer 13

to investigate of visual memory can be effected without an effect on auditory memory

Question 14

Shallice and Warrington (1970)
method:

Answer 14

• case study on KF who lost some of his memory in a car accident
• observed behaviour
• took memory tests for letters and numbers, both visual and auditory

Question 15

Shallice and Warrington (1970)
results:

Answer 15

• numbers and letters were forgotten when presented orally
• when the same was done with pictures KF was able to remember better

Question 16

Shallice and Warington (1970)
conclusion:

Answer 16

KF’s phonological loop was damaged but not his visuo-spacial sketchpad meaning he was able to remember visual information

Question 17

Lofus and Palmer (1974)
aim:

Answer 17

to investigate if leading questions effect the estimation of speed

Question 18

Lofus and Palmer (1974)
method:

Answer 18

• 45 students, independant samples
• participants watched a video of a car crash
• they were then asked a question “how fast were the cars going when they ____ eachother?”
• 7 groups were divided by verb; smashed, hit, bumped, collided, contacted

Question 19

Lofus and Palmer (1974)
results:

Answer 19

40.8 smashed
34.0 hit
38.1 bumped
39.3 collided
31.8 contacted

Question 20

Lofus and Palmer (1974)
conclusion:

Answer 20

leading questions do effect memory

Question 21

Goel et al (2000)
aim:

Answer 21

to provide a biological basis for the 2 system thinking model

Question 22

Goel et al (2000)
method:

Answer 22

• taken in a fMRI machine
• participants (31) were asked logic based ‘matching’ questions
  o concrete questions were asked like “under 18” and “drinking”
  o abstract questions were asked like “match odd numbers with colours”

Question 23

Goel et al (2000)
results:

Answer 23

temporal lobe activated with type 1 thinking
proprietal lobe activated with type 2 thinking

Question 24

Goel et al (2000)
conclusion:

Answer 24

due to different parts of the brain being activated for concrete and abstract thinking there is a biological basis for the 2 system thinking model