1 2 3 4 5
Coding of Strength Strength Limitation Limitation
memory: Value: Separate memory Controlled lab setting Artificial stimuli Replicability
Baddeley stores Findings have been Lacked mundane realism Later research has shown
Stood the test of time replicated Random lists of words – no exceptions to Baddeley’s
Important in understanding meaning/importance, not findings
Distinction between STM everyday task
and LTM and coding is Only left 20 mins before
widely accepted testing LTM – too soon
Face validity
Advanced our understanding
of memory and led to MSM
Capacity of Strength Strength Limitation
memory: Jacobs – replication Real-world application Not as many chunks
Jacobs and Lack of adequate control in Face validity Miller overestimated STM
Miller early research e.g. e.g. postcodes, number Cowan: reviewed research,
distraction during testing – plates concluded only 4+/-1 chunks
digit spans possibly Development of theories Lower estimate of 5 more
underestimated e.g. MSM appropriate than 7
Make findings invalid Naturally try to have
Confirmed by other better- information not exceeding 7
controlled studies e.g. Bopp chunks – useful in everyday
and Verhaeghen – valid context
Duration of Limitation Limitation Limitation Strength
memory: Meaningless stimuli Alternative explanation Bahrick: internal validity Bahrick: external validity
Peterson Artificial Original suggestion: decay Poor control of EVs Investigated real-life
and We do remember some without rehearsal Confounding variables e.g. meaningful memories
Peterson irrelevant information e.g. Information in STM is rehearsal of memory from Shepard: recall rates lower
and Bahrick phone numbers displaced, new information looking at yearbook with meaningless pictures
Consonant syllables – fills limited capacity e.g. More ‘real’ estimate
doesn’t reflect everyday counting down
activities Conclusion – inferences not
Lacked mundane realism fact
Lacked internal validity
The multi- Strength Limitation Limitation Limitation Limitation
store model Research support More than one STM store Elaborative Rehearsal Too simplistic Limited application
Baddeley – STM and LTM as Shallice and Warrington – KF Prolonged rehearsal not LTM is not a single store Replaced by WMM
independent who had amnesia needed to transfer to LTM Oversimplified – part of More application to field of
, Had high internal validity STM for digits poor when Craik and Watkins – type is cognitive approach psychology than real life
and good scientific read aloud to him, better more important than Tulving: LTM has 3 different Ground-breaking, paved the
methodology when he read them to amount stores processing different way
himself Elaborative – linking types of information – not
Limitation KF and others – possible information to your existing single unitary store
Research support short-term store for non- knowledge or think about Clive Wearing – brain
But artificial stimuli in verbal sounds what it means, needed for damage, episodic memory
supporting studies - digits, MSM wrong about STM long-term storage impaired but semantic and
letters, words, consonant being unitary procedural memories intact
syllables – couldn’t remember events
Lacks external validity but could walk and speak,
read music, sing and play
piano
Reductionist
Limitation – case studies
Cannot see before and after
Cannot generalise
Types of Strength Limitation Limitation Strength Limitation
LTM Clinical evidence Case study Conflicting neuroimaging Real-world application Differentiation between
HM and Clive Wearing Lack of control of variables evidence Help people with memory episodic and semantic
brain damage, episodic Brain injuries usually Buckner and Peterson: problems Tulving: episodic is a
memory impaired but unexpected reviewed evidence on Old people – memory loss, ‘specialised subcategory’ of
semantic (meaning of No control over before or location of semantic and mostly recent episodic semantic memory
words) and procedural during injury episodic – semantic on left memories People with amnesia have
memories intact – couldn’t No knowledge of memory side of PFC, episodic on the Belleville et al.: intervention functioning semantic
remember events but could prior to damage – difficult to right to improve episodic memory but damaged
walk and speak, CW could judge extent of change Tulving: links left PFC with memories in older people – episodic, impossible to have
read music, sing and play Other possible cognitive encoding of episodic and trained participants functioning episodic with
piano impairments right PFC with retrieval of performed better on test of damaged semantic
Unique to patient episodic episodic memory than Hodges and Patterson: some
Cannot assume cause and Scientific objective research control with Alzheimer’s could form
effect Low replicability – poor Specific treatments new episodic but not
Cannot generalise agreement semantic memories
Working Strength Strength Strength Limitation Strength
memory Clinical evidence Supporting research – PL Dual task performance Nature of CE Real-world application
model KF: poor STM for auditory Baddeley – word length Baddeley – ppts did verbal Difficult to design tasks that Face validity: verbal
information, could process effect and visual task at same time, only use CE and not other reasoning, comprehension,
Coding of Strength Strength Limitation Limitation
memory: Value: Separate memory Controlled lab setting Artificial stimuli Replicability
Baddeley stores Findings have been Lacked mundane realism Later research has shown
Stood the test of time replicated Random lists of words – no exceptions to Baddeley’s
Important in understanding meaning/importance, not findings
Distinction between STM everyday task
and LTM and coding is Only left 20 mins before
widely accepted testing LTM – too soon
Face validity
Advanced our understanding
of memory and led to MSM
Capacity of Strength Strength Limitation
memory: Jacobs – replication Real-world application Not as many chunks
Jacobs and Lack of adequate control in Face validity Miller overestimated STM
Miller early research e.g. e.g. postcodes, number Cowan: reviewed research,
distraction during testing – plates concluded only 4+/-1 chunks
digit spans possibly Development of theories Lower estimate of 5 more
underestimated e.g. MSM appropriate than 7
Make findings invalid Naturally try to have
Confirmed by other better- information not exceeding 7
controlled studies e.g. Bopp chunks – useful in everyday
and Verhaeghen – valid context
Duration of Limitation Limitation Limitation Strength
memory: Meaningless stimuli Alternative explanation Bahrick: internal validity Bahrick: external validity
Peterson Artificial Original suggestion: decay Poor control of EVs Investigated real-life
and We do remember some without rehearsal Confounding variables e.g. meaningful memories
Peterson irrelevant information e.g. Information in STM is rehearsal of memory from Shepard: recall rates lower
and Bahrick phone numbers displaced, new information looking at yearbook with meaningless pictures
Consonant syllables – fills limited capacity e.g. More ‘real’ estimate
doesn’t reflect everyday counting down
activities Conclusion – inferences not
Lacked mundane realism fact
Lacked internal validity
The multi- Strength Limitation Limitation Limitation Limitation
store model Research support More than one STM store Elaborative Rehearsal Too simplistic Limited application
Baddeley – STM and LTM as Shallice and Warrington – KF Prolonged rehearsal not LTM is not a single store Replaced by WMM
independent who had amnesia needed to transfer to LTM Oversimplified – part of More application to field of
, Had high internal validity STM for digits poor when Craik and Watkins – type is cognitive approach psychology than real life
and good scientific read aloud to him, better more important than Tulving: LTM has 3 different Ground-breaking, paved the
methodology when he read them to amount stores processing different way
himself Elaborative – linking types of information – not
Limitation KF and others – possible information to your existing single unitary store
Research support short-term store for non- knowledge or think about Clive Wearing – brain
But artificial stimuli in verbal sounds what it means, needed for damage, episodic memory
supporting studies - digits, MSM wrong about STM long-term storage impaired but semantic and
letters, words, consonant being unitary procedural memories intact
syllables – couldn’t remember events
Lacks external validity but could walk and speak,
read music, sing and play
piano
Reductionist
Limitation – case studies
Cannot see before and after
Cannot generalise
Types of Strength Limitation Limitation Strength Limitation
LTM Clinical evidence Case study Conflicting neuroimaging Real-world application Differentiation between
HM and Clive Wearing Lack of control of variables evidence Help people with memory episodic and semantic
brain damage, episodic Brain injuries usually Buckner and Peterson: problems Tulving: episodic is a
memory impaired but unexpected reviewed evidence on Old people – memory loss, ‘specialised subcategory’ of
semantic (meaning of No control over before or location of semantic and mostly recent episodic semantic memory
words) and procedural during injury episodic – semantic on left memories People with amnesia have
memories intact – couldn’t No knowledge of memory side of PFC, episodic on the Belleville et al.: intervention functioning semantic
remember events but could prior to damage – difficult to right to improve episodic memory but damaged
walk and speak, CW could judge extent of change Tulving: links left PFC with memories in older people – episodic, impossible to have
read music, sing and play Other possible cognitive encoding of episodic and trained participants functioning episodic with
piano impairments right PFC with retrieval of performed better on test of damaged semantic
Unique to patient episodic episodic memory than Hodges and Patterson: some
Cannot assume cause and Scientific objective research control with Alzheimer’s could form
effect Low replicability – poor Specific treatments new episodic but not
Cannot generalise agreement semantic memories
Working Strength Strength Strength Limitation Strength
memory Clinical evidence Supporting research – PL Dual task performance Nature of CE Real-world application
model KF: poor STM for auditory Baddeley – word length Baddeley – ppts did verbal Difficult to design tasks that Face validity: verbal
information, could process effect and visual task at same time, only use CE and not other reasoning, comprehension,
