Schmolck et al

Question 1

Aim of Schmolck Study

Answer 1

• To look at the relationship between semantic knowledge tests and the extent of lateral temporal lobe damage

Question 2

Participants of Schmolck Study

Answer 2

• The researchers looked at the semantic knowledge performance of 6 participants who had varying degrees of brain damage
• 5 males and 1 female
• These brain patients were compared against healthy controls

Question 3

Sample

Answer 3

MLT+ = Participants have damage in large parts of their medial temporal cortex (3 participants)
HM = Participants have hippocampal damage and limited MTL damage (1 participant)
HF = Participants had damaged only to their hippocampal formation (2 participants)
CON = Healthy participants, who are the controls

Question 4

Procedure of Schmolck Study

Answer 4

Participants were put through a series of tests such:
- Pointing/naming tasks: Had to name or point at the object the best fit a description given
- Category sorting task: Were told to think of object in categories and had to give as many examples as possible
- Noun and verbs test: Participants were given fill in the gaps tasks designed to test knowledge on regular and irregular verbs
- There were 9 tests in total, all of them measuring semantic memory

Question 5

Findings of Schmolck Study

Answer 5

• MTL+ patients with the most brain damaged did the worst on all the task
• HM did better than the MTL+ but worse than the HF and controls
• The HF patients did just as well and at times even better than the controls

Question 6

Conclusion of Schmolck Study

Answer 6

• The study concludes that semantic memory issues were associated with level of damage in the anterolateral temporal cortex
• Participants with more brain damage in that area generally performed worst on semantic tasks
• Hippocampus is not involved in semantic knowledge as patients with damage in that are performed very similarly to the controls

Question 7

Strength of Schmolck Study

Answer 7

• The study has high internal validity as it had many controls and findings not due to methodological errors
• The study combines the two methods through the MRI we can look at the extent of brain damage
• Then compare the performance of individuals in the battery of semantic knowledge tests both collecting qualitative and quantitative data
• The cause of brain damaged could be compared with the effect of issues with semantic knowledge

Question 8

Weakness of Schmolck et al

Answer 8

• The study has low population validity
• There was very low number of participants in this study which can lead to problems with generalisability as we cannot assume that the brain damaged participants have comparable semantic knowledge function before their injuries
• Therefore the results found about semantic knowledge and the MtL+ might be due to those difference and the findings can’t be generalised to the rest of the population