2 Neuropsychology evidence HM show how STM and LTM can function normally. Transfer and retrieval from LTM is impossible. MilnerKF had intact LTM but damged Hippocampus which grossily effected by STMBrain scanning also show two centres of STM and LTM
3 Lots of research Evidence Glanzer and Cunitz shows how STM and LTM function differently.It also supports MSM in showing how rehearsal moves information from STM to LTM
4 Laboratory EvidenceDuration Peterson and Peterson STM limited to a few seconds (think of graph)LTM can last a lifetime (Bahrick)Capacity = MillerAcoustic Coding (STM) = Conrad and semantic preferred form in LTM (Baddeley)
5 weaknessesKF new information into LTM even when his STM was not working properly (so no rehearsal)Shocking events go straight into LTMTechniques for memory that do not rely on rehearsal.
6 Research Interpretation KF and HM can support and cast doubt on model. Extract:Miller only a certain amount of space in STM but Baddeley thought of STM as a period of time
7 Is it too simple Is it linear Is it just acoustic Is it an over simplification of memory.
9 KFIn contrast K.F. could recall a sequence of four visually presented digits. When he made errors with visually presented letters, these errors tended to be based on visual confusions rather than acoustic confusions. As I mentioned earlier, most normal subjects tend to produce acoustic confusions with visually presented, verbal material. This suggests that normal subjects usually translate the visually presented words, letters, or digits into a phonologically based code for retention in a phonologically based store. It appeared, then, that K.F. attempted to retain information using relatively intact visual short-term storage functions while his phonologically based, verbal short-term storage system was severely impaired.