Different Types of LTM

Question 1

Who suggested there may be different types of LTM and when? What are these stores called?

Answer 1

1. Tulving (1985)

2. Episodic, semantic, procedural store

Question 2

Give the features of the episodic store. Provide an example of an episodic memory.

Answer 2

1. LTM store for personal life events - timestamped + who, where
2. Each episode = sev elements interwoven to form single mem
3. Must be retrieved with consc effort
4. E.g. Recent doctor’s appt

Question 3

Give the features of the semantic store. Provide an example of a semantic memory.

Answer 3

1. LTM store for knowledge of the world - facts, meanings of words, concepts
2. Not timestamped - impersonal
3. Consc effort to recall
4. E.g. capital city of Japan is Tokyo

Question 4

Give the features of the procedural store. Provide an example of a procedural memory.

Answer 4

1. LTM for knowledge of how to perform actions/skills (motor memories)
2. No consc effort to recall
3. E.g. how to swim

Question 5

What is one strength of episodic memory?

Answer 5

1. Supported by case study evidence - HM + Wearing
2. Both impaired epi mem bc of amnesia
3. Sem mem and proc mem intact
4. Supports idea of sep stores in LTM b/c one can be damaged while others unaffected

Question 6

Give 2 other strengths of Tulving’s LTM theory.

Answer 6

1. Supported by evif from brain scans - Tulving et al (1994)
   - Ppts perf mem tasks while PET scanned

• scan showed epi and seman mem’s recalled from PFC
• epi = right PFC, seman = left PFC
• supports idea of diff physical areas for diff LTM stores + inc validity
  2. Has practical applications - Bellevlle et al (2006)
• Found that epi mem can impr in old ppl w mild cog imp; trained ppts perf better than control group
• benefit of distinguishing diff types of LTM = targeted treatments

Question 7

Give one weakness of episodic memory.

Answer 7

1, Supporting studies lack adeq controls of ppt variables

2. e.g. Cannot control spec location of brain damage as damage was unique to them
3. Unclear of extent to which damge influenced mem as damge was unique
4. Limited generalisability