Multi-Store Model Evaluation

Multi-Store Model Evaluation

1. Research Evidence

   • Clinical case studies provide evidence that different areas of the brain are involved in STM & LTM
   • Supports that memory consists of different stores
   • HM - suffered brain damage after hippocampus removal
   • After surgery he could not form new LTM but still performed well on test of immediate recall
   • Indicates brain damage limited to LTM & STM remained intact
   • Unique case study so limits how far this can be used to support MSM

2. Too Simplistic

   • Critics question the concept that the STM is a unitary store
   • Contradictory evidence from people suffering with amnesia
   • KF - suffered amnesia & had poor recall of words read aloud but performed better when he could read the words himself
   • Suggests there are a number of separate STM stores
   • Working memory model is a better explanation
   • WMM argues STM made of separate stores for visual & auditory info
   • Suggests KF's visual store intact but not phonological loop
   • Tulving
     • Argues LTM may not be unitary store - we have one LTM for memories of facts (semantic) & a different one for memories of how to ride a bike (procedural)

3. Methodology

   • Research flawed by use of artificial tasks that lack mundane realism
   • Ppts given irrelevant words/digits to recall e.g. Jacobs
   • Words have limited relevance to ppts so likely to illicit DCs or ppts may be less motivated to memorise & remember items
   • Yerkes-Dodson law - illustrated low anxiety arousal results in poor recall
   • Artificial task may be acting as an extraneous variable so affects validity of research into MSM
   • Also does not reflect individual's capacity/duration/coding in everyday memory situations