LTM

• Strength - case study Evidence HM

  point: clinical case studies like HM supports the LTM theory in regards to episodic and semantic memory being separate systems

  evidence: the case study of HM showed that his episodic memory was impaired severely due to brain damage as he could not recall events from his past, however his semantic memory was intact as he still understood the meaning of words like knowing what a dog is.

  explanation: this supports tulving 1970 LTM theory as it clearly shows that LTM does have two seperate systems
• competing argument: HM lacks generalisability

  point: lacks generalisability

  evidence: relying on observations of memory function in patients with brain damage can't compare how they were before the brain damage occurred

  explanation:this makes it difficult to measure the true extent of the impairments in this case episodic and semantic. this weakens the validity of the findings drawn from HM and limits its generalisability to the wider population.
• Weakness: overlapping of semantic and episodic memory

  point: psychologists argue that episodic and semantic memory are not separate

  evidence: tulving claimed that episodic memory may be a subcategory of semantic memory as episodic memory relies on knowledge like what a birthday party is for example

  explanation: this challenges the LTM theory in regards to semantic and episodic memory being separate, and it may be overlapped this makes the distinction between the two stores more complex than tulving proposed
• application: belleville et al 2006

  point: real life application

  evidence: belleville et al 2006 found that training programs targeting episodic memory could improve memory performance in adults with mild cognitive impairments

  explanation: this shows the practical benefits of tulving's research as it helps psychologists develop interventions to improve quality of memory and life for individuals with memory impairments in especially older adults