A03

• strength- case study of HM

  • Highlights how there is 2 separate LTM and STM stores 

  Underwent surgery to fix his epilepsy and removed his hippocampus, could no longer form LTM yet performed well on stm tests.

  Increases reliability of model 

  Case study- in-depth qualitative data produced however lacks generalisability as an idiographic approach is being taken.
• limitation- case study of KF

  • Shallice and Warrington studied KF who suffered amnesia after motorcycle accident. KFs stm recall for digits was poor when read aloud-auditory however better when he read to himself- visual
  • Decreases reliability as it shows multiple stores of stm which is not highlighted in this model suggesting it is over simplifying 
  • However, evaluate the use of a case study here.
• limitation- different types of LTM- tulving et al

  • The MSM does not represent this because it sees LTM as a single, unitary store. does not represent that some types of LTM can be retrieved unconsciously (e.g., procedural) whilst others must be retrieved consciously (e.g., semantic),
  • Reduces the reliability and validity of this model and again suggests it is an oversimplified theory to explain a complex biological mechanism
• strength- stm and ltm seperate

  • The MSM acknowledges the qualitative differences between STM and LTM by representing them as separate stores. For example, STM is encoded acoustically, whilst LTM is encoded semantically and has a much longer duration.


  Therefore, the MSM portrays an accurate view of the differences between the two types of memory, as supported by Baddeley and Miller.- base knowledge to increase understanding further