TULVING LTM

Question 1

Tulving

Answer 1

response to msm as it didn’t full rep the Complexity of ltm
episodic = experience & semantic (facts).

Question 2

Episodic

Answer 2

Nature=mental diary
Time=time and context reference
Spatial=continuous input once
Retrieval= cues, forget due to failure, memory trace> transformed

Question 3

Semantic

Answer 3

Nature=mental encyclopedia
Time= indp time ref
Spatial= frag input diff time
Retrieval= not cued,memory trace = robust less susceptible to transform

Question 4

Strength

Answer 4

I brain damaged patient supports 2 separate stores.
J kf motorbike accident= unable to form m/recall from personal (episodic)
but recall factual info (Semantic)
E supports sep LTM stores + indicates stored in the diff region= avenue for further research.

Question 5

Counter

Answer 5

Unique circumstance= dify in nature of brain functioning
difficult to apply findings on memory based w diff injures

Question 6

Weakness

Answer 6

I Clive and HM contradictory as stores are too simplistic
J use certain ltm eg skills before damage=own name piano= not ep or sem
E more complex than stated

Question 7

Weakness counterargument

Answer 7

H= Counterargument: Tulv amended LTM model by adding ÷ for declarative memory (epi +sem) & ÷ for procedural memory= explained the retention of skills observed in HM and Clive Wearing.