Mem: MSM AO3

Question 1

Strength of MSM- supportive research from HM case study

Answer 1

-HM’s LTM was damaged (couldn’t recall what he’d eaten earlier/reread a magazine w/out remembering it).
-but, STM was intact- did well on digit span tests.
-supports MSM- evidence for 2 separate/independent memory stores -> increases validity of the model
-however, is a study of 1 person, so results not generalizable (epilepsy meds may have changed how his brain worked)

Question 2

Strength- evidence from brain scans the STM/LTM are separate

Answer 2

-Beardsley (1997) found prefrontal cortex is active during STM (e.g. making a decision), but not LTM
-Squire (‘92) found hippocampus is active with LTM
-provides evidence there is 1+ stores- different parts of brain active when different memory is used.
-scientific + objective evidence which increases the validity of the theory

Question 3

Limitation- other researchers argued they over-emphasizes role of maintenance rehearsal- elaborate rehearsal is more important

Answer 3

-Craik and Lockheart (1972) gave ppts a list of words + asked a q which involved shallow/deep processing (e.g. shallow- word printed in capitals, deep- if word fitted in sentence)
-ppts remembered more when processed deeply
-theory was developed into Levels of Processing theory- questions fundamental concept of maintenance rehearsal
-questions model validity

Question 4

Limitation- too simplistic revealed by case studies

Answer 4

-claims LTM is a unitary store, but findings from HM refute this
-he was unable to create new episodic + semantic LTMs, but could develop procedural memories
-suggests there is more than one LTM store
-so, although MSM is influential in memory understanding, doesn’t give full explanation of memory