Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Tulving's theory of LTM - Coggle Diagram

- - - - The case study of HM
        
        He could do procedural tasks that didn’t require STM, for example he could remember events from his childhood.
        
        This means that there are divisions in LTM, as he could use his ‘procedural memory’, as Tulving suggested
    - - Pps who had mild memory impairment who took training to improve their episodic memories performed better on a test of episodic memory compared to a control group showing it is possible to improve separate types of LTM.
        
        This means training can help individuals improve their memory which allows them to lead more normal lives as they grow old.
  - - - Examples could be the case studies such as KF and HM. This is a weakness because it means that these are individual cases, which makes them difficult to generalise to the entire population
        
        This means that Tulving doesn’t have enough cases to increase the generalizability of his theory. Low generalisability means that the results from Tulving’s evidence, like the case studies of HM and KF, may only be applicable to a small percentage of the population. This reduces the validity of his theory.
    - - Tulving doesn't explain how these stores of LTM work
        
        For example, HM was able to remember skills (playing the piano) and learnt new skills, such as improving accuracy when tracing routes through mazes and five pointed stars on paper, even though he forgot practicing them.
        
        This shows a gap in Tulving’s work as he didn’t explain how the different types of LTM work independently, as HM’s did.