Karteikarten
Schmolck
Karten in diesem Stapel (21)
- 1What was the aim of this study?To find out if Semantic LTM is linked to a particular part of the brain. If so, patients with lesions in that part of the brain should underperform at tests of Semantic LTM.
- 2Who were the participants?6 patients with severe damage to the MTL and 8 Controls with no brain damage. 3 of the patients also had damage to the temporal cortex generally (MTL+)
- 3What were the independent variables?The extent of brain injury: (1) 3 patients with damage to Hippocampus/MTL only; (2) 3 patients with damage to MTL and the temporal cortex too (the MTL+ group); (3) a Control group with no brain damage.
- 4What was the participant design?IV naturally occurring - Natural experiment
Control matched on age education - matched pairs
All ppts did all tests - repeated measures - 5HMSince H.M. also had more widespread brain damage than the other Hippocampus/MTL patients (brought on perhaps by his earlier epilepsy, perhaps by the less accurate brain surgery in the 1950s) he was also considered separately from the others.
- 6What was the dependent variable?Scores on 9 separate tests of semantic LTM
- 7Describe these testsBased on a set of 48 drawings, half of animals and half of objects. These pictures were grouped in sixes
- 8Name 4 of the types of testSimilar pictures: the participants are shown 6 pictures sharing a theme and asked to point out the one that the researcher names (this is testing for confusion caused by semantic similarity – similar to the Baddeley study)
Category fluency: the participants were asked to give as many examples as possible from each theme within a minute
Category sorting: the participants were given all 48 pictures and asked to sort them into “living” or “man made”
Definitions: the participants were shown a picture and asked to define it by the theme it fitted into - 9What additional tests were used and what did they involve?Tests that are used with dementia patients. One of these involved 30 pictures that showed either real objects or non-objects: participants had to say whether the object in the picture was real or not.
- 10How were the results recordedThe participants were tape recorded and their responses transcribed. 14 'raters' checked each transcript for reliability and also looked for grammar/syntax errors in the way the participants spoke because problems with language also indicates trouble with semantic memory.
- 11What were the results for the similar pictures?The Controls got all the answers right as did those with hippocampus damage only (H.M. score 98% for living creatures and 100% for objects); MTL+ patients performed worse: 85% for living creatures and 90% for objects
- 12What were the medial temporal lobe + patients?These patients did significantly worse in all the tests (p<0.005)
- 13What were HM's results?H.M. did better than the MTL+ patients but slightly worse than the other MTL patients who had damage solely to the hippocampus
- 14What were the overall results?Controls scored 99%, MTL patients (excluding HM) scored 100% and MTL+ patients scored 78%
- 15What conclusions can be made?- Clear link between damage to the temporal cortex generally and the loss of semantic LTM as patients with damage specific to the hippocampus suffered loss of episodic memory, but not semantic memory.
Suggests that semantic and episodic LTM are encoded in different parts of the brain, with the hippocampus/MTL dealing with episodic memory and the nearby temporal cortex dealing with semantic memory.
. - 16What about HM?H.M. performed similarly to the Controls but with odd lapses when it came to defining things, where he resembled the MTL+ group more. This suggests H.M. had very specific brain damage that wasn't quite like the others. However, there are problems with generalising from H.M. because of his unusual background. H.M spent most of his young life with debilitating epilepsy and his entire adult life in hospitals, being studied by psychologists
- 17GSmall sample, easily distorted by anomalies
HM was singled out as an anomaly
The brain damage is rare so findings are not generalisable - 18RStandardised procedure that can be replicated
14 raters means that there is inter-rater reliability
Participants specific damage is not replicable - 19AHas been built on by other psychologists
Helps to understand risks of brain surgery
Could lead to cures for brain damage - 20VControls were used (matched pairs)
Lacks ecological validity - 21E1- HM's identity was not kept secret
2- No harm
3- No deception
4- No explicit right to withdraw
5- Informed consent
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Karteikarten am Schmolck, erstellt von Cara White am 14/05/2017.
- Erstellt von
- Cara White · Mai 2017
- Aktualisiert
- 14 Mai 2017
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung