Contemporary study - Schmolck et al. (2002) Flashcards
What is the aim of the Schmolck (2002) Contemporary Study?
To investigate the effects of damage to the medial temporal lobe (MTL) and the anterolateral temporal cortex (MLT+) on semantic knowledge
What were the IV, DV, and experimental design of the Schmolck (2002) Contemporary Study? (4 points)
IV: 6 Brain damaged participants V 8 non-brain-damaged participants
DV: Score on 9 semantic tests conducted
Experimental design:
+ Matched-pairs design based on age and education
+ Natural experiment - patient’s brain damage was a naturally varying IV
Who were the participants of the Schmolck (2002) Contemporary Study? (3 points)
Control Group - 8 people
MTL/HF - 3 people with hippocampus (medial temporal lobe) damage (included HM)
MTL+ - 3 people with medial temporal lobe and anterolateral temporal cortex damage which is more widespread
What was the procedure of the Schmolck (2002) Contemporary Study? (3 points)
9 semantic tests based on 48 line drawings
Participants had to identify, sort and define 24 living and 24 non-living drawings
Drawings could be further assigned to one of 8 categories e.g. 6 birds
What were the 5 types of semantic tests done in the Shmolck Contemporary Study? (5 points)
1-4: Naming a picture - point out or name a picture presented (% correct)
5: Semantic Features - yes/No questions about the physical appearance (% correct)
6: Category Sorting - give as many examples of each of the 8 categories (number of items)
7: Category Sorting - name and sort into categories like living/non-living (% correct)
8-9: Define - provide a definition (Rated 0-4)
8 = Names
9 = Picture
What steps were taken to assess Tests 8-9 in the Shmolck (2002) Contemporary Study? (3 points)
Participants were tape-recorded and their responses transcribed
14 ‘raters’ checked each transcript for reliability
Also looked for grammar/syntax errors in the way the participants spoke - problems with language indicate trouble with semantic memory
What were the overall results of the Shmolck (2002) Contemporary Study? (3 points)
Tests 1-4:
Hippocampus (HF/MTL) Patients - 100%
Control Group - 98.9%
HM - 96.5% living, 99.5% non-living
MTL+ Patients - 78.1%
Test 9 (on average):
MLT/HF - 3.2
MTL+ - 1.8
What were the conclusions of the Shmolck (2002) Contemporary Study? (3 points)
Negative correlation between the degree of anterolateral temporal cortex damage and semantic memory score
Medial temporal lobe damage affects episodic memory
Anterolateral temporal cortex damage affects semantic memory
How generalisable was the Shmolck (2002) Contemporary Study? (4 points)
Lacks population validity
Used a sample of 6 brain-damaged patients (3 MTL/HF and 3 MTL+), compared them to 8 control participants
Each group contained all males with one female - androcentric
Makes it difficult to generalise findings to the wider population - sample is unrepresentative of women
How reliable was the Shmolck (2002) Contemporary Study? (4 points)
Very reliable experiment
14 researchers used accuracy ratings from 0 (poor) to 4 (good) on Semantic Memory Tests 8 and 9 (providing definitions for names and pictures)
Inter-rater reliability reduced the subjectivity of the rater’s interpretations, preventing experimenter bias
Improved consistency led to conclusions being more internally valid
How applicable was the Shmolck (2002) Contemporary Study? (3 points)
Useful applications for neurosurgeons
Concluded that episodic long-term memories are localised to the hippocampus (MTL) region, whereas semantic memories are localised to the anterolateral temporal cortex
Gives maps for neurosurgeons removing brain tumours - can try to avoid those areas to protect patients from cognitive function decline
How is the Schmolck Contemporary Study internally valid? (2 points)
Matched-pairs design used to remove participant extraneous variables
Quantitative data collected (e.g. tests 1-4 - point out or name a picture (% correct)) - free from subjective interpretation regarding participants’ semantic memory performance
How is the Schmolck contemporary study not internally valid? (2 points)
Matched-pairs design is never perfectly matched - participant variables like life experiences could’ve confounded the results
Semantic memory of the participants before their brain damage couldn’t be tested - conclusions may be invalid
How ecologically valid was the Schmolck Contemporary Study? (3 points)
Low ecological validity
Task of naming and categorising drawings of animals and objects not reflective of real-life
Patients could have used semantic recognition of genuine real-life objects and animals as opposed to line drawings to make it more applicable to real life
How ethical was the Schmolck Contemporary Study? (4 points)
Patient HM and others with hippocampus damage/removal could not give informed consent - unable to remember having the study explained to them (episodic memory)
Researchers had to obtain presumptive consent from the patients’ doctors and carers
Cost-benefit analysis was weighed up
Benefits: helps doctors and patients to be more informed of the risks of surgical procedures in the temporal lobe - outweighs issue of consent
