MSM

A01

draw the model

Evaluation: Shallice and Warrington’s (1970) case study of KF

• POINT=  Supported through KF as his memory was impaired as a result of a motorbike accident, where he suffered significant brain injury

• ELABORATE= the idea of separate stores of MSM: KF’s STM had a reduced capacity of just 1-2 items, yet his LTM was undamaged 

• IMPORTANCE = thus showing they must be located in different areas of the brain, as one was damaged, but not the other was fine)

• COUNTER ARGUMENT: The simplified nature of the MSM: KF’s difficulties in capacity in STM were only for verbal items, his STM for visual and acoustic items was fine – suggesting that just one unitary store for all STMs, irrespective of type, is oversimplifying how our STM actually works.

Evaluation: Blakemore’s (1988) case study of Clive Wearing

• POINT= Supported through Clive Wearing had virtually no LTM since the herpes virus destroyed parts of his temporal lobes (including his hippocampi). His STM works fine.

• ELABORATE= The idea of separate stores of MSM: Clive’s LTM had a reduced functioning, yet his STM was undamaged  

• IMPORTANCE= thus showing they must be located in different areas of the brain, as one was damaged by the virus in his temporal lobes, but not the other

Evaluation: issue/ debate

• POINT= research examining the MSM is an example of machine reductionism

• ELABORATE= as it attempts to explain a complex behaviour by comparing humans to computers (machines). However, as memory is a complex phenomenon, highly holistically affected by emotions and motivation, this undermines the complexity of human memory and does not provide us with a comprehensive understanding of memory in everyday context

• IMPORTANCE= limiting the usefulness of the MSM in explaining human memory accurately