Contemporary studies: Schmolck et al. (2002); Darling et al. (2007) or Sacchi et al. (2007)

Welcome to Contemporary Cognitive Research!

In previous chapters, we explored foundational ideas like the Multi-Store Model and the famous case of HM. Now, we are looking at "Contemporary Studies." These are more recent pieces of research that build on those older theories. Think of these as the "software updates" to the original psychological "operating systems."

For your Edexcel exam, you need to know Schmolck et al. (2002) in detail, plus one of the other two studies (Darling or Sacchi). We will cover all three here so you can choose the one your class is focusing on!

1. Schmolck et al. (2002): Semantic Knowledge in Patient HM

This study is a follow-up on the most famous patient in psychology: Henry Molaison (HM). We already know HM couldn't form new memories of events (episodic memory), but Schmolck wanted to know how his semantic memory (knowledge of facts and meanings) was doing compared to other patients with brain damage.

What was the aim?

To investigate the effects of specific brain lesions (damage) in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) and the anterolateral temporal cortex on semantic knowledge. Essentially: Which part of the brain stores our "encyclopedia" of facts?

Who were the participants?

Schmolck used a small, unique group of people:

1. HM: Had his MTL removed to treat epilepsy.
2. MTL Group: Patients with damage only to the medial temporal lobe.
3. MTL+ Group: Patients with damage to the MTL plus the surrounding temporal cortex.
4. Control Group: Healthy people with no brain damage.

What did they do?

Participants took part in 9 different tests based on 48 items (half living things, half non-living things). Tasks included:
- Naming: Pointing to a picture and saying what it is.
- Pointing to Picture: Hearing a name and pointing to the right image.
- Defining: Providing a definition for a word.

The Results

- Healthy controls and the MTL-only group (except HM) were near perfect.
- HM did well but made some errors, particularly with naming items he hadn't seen often since his surgery.
- The MTL+ group performed much worse. They struggled to name objects or describe their features (e.g., they might not know if an elephant has a trunk).

The Conclusion

The medial temporal lobe (MTL) (where HM had damage) is vital for forming new memories, but the anterolateral temporal cortex is where we actually store semantic knowledge. Because HM had damage nearby, his semantic memory was slightly affected, but not as badly as those with "MTL+" damage.

Quick Takeaway: Different parts of the temporal lobe do different jobs. The "storage facility" for facts is likely the lateral temporal cortex.

2. Darling et al. (2007): Splitting the Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad

This study focuses on the Working Memory Model (WMM). If you remember Baddeley and Hitch, they proposed the Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad (VSSP). Darling et al. wanted to see if the VSSP is actually two separate "mini-stores": one for visual information (what things look like) and one for spatial information (where things are).

What was the aim?

To find evidence that visual and spatial memory are separate systems that can be "interfered" with independently.

What did they do?

72 participants were asked to remember the position of a white square on a screen (spatial) or its appearance (visual). While trying to remember, they were given "interference tasks":
- Visual interference: Looking at changing patterns of shapes.
- Spatial interference: Blindly following a moving peg with their finger.

The Results

- Spatial interference made it much harder to remember the location (the "where").
- Visual interference made it much harder to remember the appearance (the "what").
- Crucially, visual interference didn't really affect spatial memory, and vice versa!

The Conclusion

This is evidence of fractionation. The VSSP is not one big box; it is split into a "Visual Cache" (for color and shape) and an "Inner Scribe" (for space and movement). This supports the Working Memory Model's idea that we have specific systems for different types of data.

3. Sacchi et al. (2007): Changing History with Photos

This study links to Bartlett’s Reconstructive Memory. It explores how our memories can be "rewritten" by external information—specifically, doctored (fake) photographs.

What was the aim?

To see if showing people edited photos of famous past events would change their memory of those events.

What did they do?

Participants were shown photos of two real historical events:
1. The 1989 Tiananmen Square protest in Beijing.
2. A 2003 anti-war protest in Rome.
Some participants saw the original photos. Others saw doctored photos (e.g., adding more people to the crowd or adding soldiers).

The Results

Participants who saw the doctored photos actually "remembered" the events differently! For example, those who saw the doctored Rome photo (which added more violence and more people) rated the event as more violent and thought more people had attended than those who saw the original.

The Conclusion

Our memory is reconstructive. We use new information (like a fake photo) to fill in the gaps of our old memories. This shows how easily "fake news" or manipulated media can change our personal "truth" about history.

Evaluation: How to Critically Analyse These Studies

When you get an 8-mark or 12-mark question, use the GRAVEO tool to evaluate:

1. Generalisability (Can we apply this to everyone?)
- Schmolck: Very low. They only studied 6 rare brain-damaged patients. HM is unique!
- Darling/Sacchi: Better. They used larger groups of "normal" people, so results are more likely to apply to the general public.

2. Reliability (Can we repeat it and get the same results?)
- Schmolck: High. They used highly standardised tests (the 9 semantic tasks).
- Darling: High. A lab experiment with strict controls over the interference tasks.

3. Application (How is this useful in the real world?)
- Schmolck: Helps doctors understand how to treat patients with brain injuries.
- Sacchi: Warns us about the danger of photo manipulation in news and its effect on eyewitness testimony.

4. Validity (Is it a "true" reflection of memory?)
- Ecological Validity: Generally low for Schmolck and Darling. We don't usually sit in labs naming pictures of squirrels or following pegs in the dark. These are "artificial" tasks.

5. Ethics (Was it "right" to do?)
- Schmolck: HM couldn't remember giving consent for more than a few minutes. However, researchers followed strict ethical guidelines to protect him.

6. Objectivity (Is it free from bias?)
- All three studies used quantitative data (scores on tests, percentages of errors). This is objective because it doesn't rely on the researcher's opinion.

Quick Review Box

Schmolck: HM and semantic memory. Damage to the lateral temporal cortex = loss of facts.
Darling: Visual vs Spatial. The VSSP is split into "what" and "where" stores.
Sacchi: Doctored photos. Seeing is believing—even if the photo is fake, our memory changes to match it.

Common Mistake to Avoid: Don't confuse Schmolck with HM’s original case study. Schmolck was specifically looking at semantic memory in 2002, while the original HM research (by Scoville and Milner) focused on his inability to make episodic memories.