case study kf

Psychology Memory Revision Notes

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

What do the examiners look for?

• Accurate and detailed knowledge
• Clear, coherent, and focused answers
• Effective use of terminology (use the “technical terms”)

In application questions, examiners look for “effective application to the scenario,” which means that you need to describe the theory and explain the scenario using the theory making the links between the two very clear. If there is more than one individual in the scenario you must mention all of the characters to get to the top band.

Difference between AS and A level answers

The descriptions follow the same criteria; however, you have to use the issues and debates effectively in your answers. “Effectively” means that it needs to be clearly linked and explained in the context of the answer.

Read the model answers to get a clearer idea of what is needed.

The Multi-Store Model

The multistore model of memory was proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin and is a structural model. They proposed that memory consisted of three stores: sensory register, short-term memory (STM), and long-term memory (LTM). Information passes from store to store in a linear way. Both STM and LTM are unitary stores.

Sensory memory is the information you get from your sense, your eyes, and ears. When attention is paid to something in the environment, it is then converted to short-term memory.

Information from short-term memory is transferred to long-term memory only if that information is rehearsed (i.e., repeated).

Maintenance rehearsal is repetition that keeps information in STM, but eventually, such repetition will create an LTM.

If maintenance rehearsal (repetition) does not occur, then information is forgotten and lost from short-term memory through the processes of displacement or decay.

Each store has its own characteristics in terms of encoding, capacity, and duration .

• Encoding is the way information is changed so that it can be stored in memory. There are three main ways in which information can be encoded (changed): 1. visual (picture), 2. acoustic (sound), and 3. semantic (meaning).
• Capacity concerns how much information can be stored.
• Duration refers to the period of time information can last in-memory stores.

Sensory register

• Duration: ¼ to ½ second
• Capacity: all sensory experience (v. larger capacity)
• Encoding: sense specific (e.g., different stores for each sense)

Short Term Memory

• Duration: 0-18 seconds
• Capacity: 7 +/- 2 items
• Encoding: mainly acoustic

Long Term Memory

• Duration: Unlimited
• Capacity: Unlimited
• Encoding: Mainly semantic (but can be visual and acoustic)

AO2 Scenario Question

The multi-store model of memory has been criticized in many ways. The following example illustrates a possible criticism.

Some students read through their revision notes lots of times before an examination but still, find it difficult to remember the information. However, the same students can remember the information in a celebrity magazine, even though they read it only once.

Explain why this can be used as a criticism of the multi-store model of memory.

“The MSM states that depth of memory trace in LTM is simply a result of the amount of rehearsal that takes place.

The MSM can be criticized for failing to account for how different types of material can result in different depth memory traces even though they’ve both been rehearsed for a similar amount of time.

For example, people may recall information they are interested in (e.g., information in celebrity magazines) more than the material they are not interested in (e.g., revision notes) despite the fact that they have both been rehearsed for a similar amount of time.

Therefore, the MSM’s view of long-term memory can be criticized for failing to take into account that material we may pay more attention to or is more meaningful/interesting to us may cause a deeper memory trace which is recalled more easily.”

One strength of the multistore model is that it gives us a good understanding of the structure and process of the STM. This is good because this allows researchers to expand on this model. This means researchers can do experiments to improve on this model and make it more valid, and they can prove what the stores actually do.

The model is supported by studies of amnesiacs: For example the patient H.M. case study. HM is still alive but has marked problems in long-term memory after brain surgery.

He has remembered little of personal (death of mother and father) or public events (Watergate, Vietnam War) that have occurred over the last 45 years. However, his short-term memory remains intact.

It has now become apparent that both short-term and long-term memory is more complicated than previously thought. For example, the Working Model of Memory proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) showed that short-term memory is more than just one simple unitary store and comprises different components (e.g., central executive, Visuospatial, etc.).

The model suggests rehearsal helps to transfer information into LTM, but this is not essential. Why are we able to recall information which we did not rehearse (e.g., swimming) yet unable to recall information which we have rehearsed (e.g., reading your notes while revising)?

Therefore, the role of rehearsal as a means of transferring from STM to LTM is much less important than Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) claimed in their model.

Research Study for both STM & LTM

Research studies can either be knowledge or evaluation:

• If you refer to the procedures and findings of a study, this shows knowledge and understanding (AO1).
• If you comment on what the studies show and what it supports and challenges the theory in question, this shows evaluation (AO3).

Glanzer and Cunitz showed that when participants are presented with a list of words, they tend to remember the first few and last few words and are more likely to forget those in the middle of the list, i.e., the serial position effect.

This supports the existence of separate LTM and STM stores because they observed a primacy and recency effect.

Words early on in the list were put into long-term memory (primacy effect) because the person has time to rehearse the word, and words from the end went into short-term memory (recency effect).

Other compelling evidence to support this distinction between STM and LTM is the case of KF (Shallice & Warrington, 1970), who had been in a motorcycle crash where he had sustained brain damage. His LTM seemed to be unaffected, but he was only able to recall the last bit of information he had heard in his STM.

Types of Long-Term Memory

One of the earliest and most influential distinctions of long-term memory was proposed by Tulving (1972).  He proposed a distinction between episodic, semantic, and procedural memory.

Procedural Memory

Procedural memory is a part of the implicit long-term memory responsible for knowing how to do things, i.e., a memory of motor skills. A part of long-term memory is responsible for knowing how to do things, i.e., the memory of motor skills.  It does not involve conscious (i.e., it’s unconscious-automatic) thought and is not declarative.

For example, procedural memory would involve knowledge of how to ride a bicycle.

Semantic Memory

Episodic memory.

Episodic memory is a part of the long-term memory responsible for storing information about events (i.e., episodes) that we have experienced in our lives.

It involves conscious thought and is declarative.  An example would be a memory of our 1st day at school.

Cohen and Squire (1980) drew a distinction between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge .  Procedural knowledge involves “knowing how” to do things. It included skills such as “knowing how” to play the piano, ride a bike, tie your shoes, and other motor skills.

It does not involve conscious thought (i.e., it’s unconscious-automatic).  For example, we brush our teeth with little or no awareness of the skills involved.

Whereas declarative knowledge involves “knowing that”; for example, London is the capital of England, zebras are animals, your mum’s birthday, etc.  Recalling information from declarative memory involves some degree of conscious effort – information is consciously brought to mind and “declared.”

The knowledge that we hold in semantic and episodic memories focuses on “knowing that” something is the case (i.e., declarative).  For example, we might have a semantic memory for knowing that Paris is the capital of France, and we might have an episodic memory for knowing that we caught the bus to college today.

Evidence for the distinction between declarative and procedural memory has come from research on patients with amnesia . Typically, amnesic patients have great difficulty in retaining episodic and semantic information following the onset of amnesia.

Their memory for events and knowledge acquired before the onset of the condition tends to remain intact, but they can’t store new episodic or semantic memories. In other words, it appears that their ability to retain declarative information is impaired.

However, their procedural memory appears to be largely unaffected. They can recall skills they have already learned (e.g., riding a bike) and acquire new skills (e.g., learning to drive).

Working Memory Model

The working memory model (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974) replaced the idea of a unitary STM. It suggests a system involving active processing and short-term storage of information.

Key features include the central executive, the phonological loop, and the visuospatial sketchpad.

The central executive has a supervisory function and acts as a filter, determining which information is attended to.

It can process information in all sensory forms, direct information to other slave systems, and collects responses. It has limited capacity and deals with only one piece of information at a time.

One of the slave systems is the phonological loop which is a temporary storage system for holding auditory information in a speech-based form.

It has two parts: (1) the phonological store (inner ear), which stores words you hear; and (2) the articulatory process (inner voice), which allows maintenance rehearsal (repeating sounds or words to keep them in working memory while they are needed). The phonological loop plays a key role in the development of reading.

The second slave system is the Visuospatial sketchpad (VSS). The VSS is a temporary memory system for holding visual and spatial information. It has two parts: (1) the visual cache (which stores visual data about form and color) and (2) the inner scribe (which records the arrangement of objects in the visual field and rehearses and transfers information in the visual cache to the central executive).

The third slave system is the episodic buffer which acts as a “backup” (temporary) store for information that communicates with both long-term memory and the slave system components of working memory. One of its important functions is to recall material from LTM and integrate it into STM when working memory requires it.

Bryan has been driving for five years. Whilst driving, Bryan can hold conversations or listen to music with little difficulty.

Bob has had four driving lessons. Driving requires so much of Bob’s concentration that, during lessons, he often misses what his driving instructor is telling him. With reference to features of the working memory model, explain the different experiences of Bryan and Bob. (4 marks)

A tricky question – the answer lies in Bryan being able to divide the different components of his STM because he is experienced at driving and doesn’t need to devote all his attention to the task of driving (controlled by the visuospatial sketchpad).

“Because Bryan has been driving for five years it is an ‘automated’ task for him; it makes fewer attentional demands on his central executive, so he is free to perform other tasks (such as talking or listening to music) and thus is able to divide resources between his visuospatial sketch pad (driving) and phonological loop (talking and listening to music).

As Bob is inexperienced at driving, this is not the case for him – his central executive requires all of his attentional capacity for driving and thus cannot divide resources effectively between components of working memory.”

Working memory is supported by dual-task studies. It is easier to do two tasks at the same time if they use different processing systems (verbal and visual) than if they use the same slave system.

For example, participants would find it hard to do two visual tasks at the same time because they would be competing for the same limited resources of the visuospatial sketchpad. However, a visual task and a verbal task would use different components and so could be performed with minimum errors.

The KF Case Study supports the Working Memory Model. KF suffered brain damage from a motorcycle accident that damaged his short-term memory. KF’s impairment was mainly for verbal information – his memory for visual information was largely unaffected.

This shows that there are separate STM components for visual information (VSS) and verbal information (phonological loop). However, evidence from brain-damaged patients may not be reliable because it concerns unique cases with patients who have had traumatic experiences.

One limitation is the fact that little is known about how the central executive works. It is an important part of the model, but its exact role is unclear.

Another limitation is that the model does not explain the link between working memory and LTM.

Research Study for WM

• If you refer to the procedures and findings of a study, this shows knowledge and understanding.
• If you comment on what the studies show and what it supports and challenges the theory in question, this shows evaluation.

Baddeley and Hitch conducted an experiment in which participants were asked to perform two tasks at the same time (dual task technique). A digit span task required them to repeat a list of numbers, and a verbal reasoning task which required them to answer true or false to various questions (e.g., B is followed by A?).

Results : As the number of digits increased in the digit span tasks, participants took longer to answer the reasoning questions, but not much longer – only fractions of a second. And they didn’t make any more errors in the verbal reasoning tasks as the number of digits increased.

Conclusion : The verbal reasoning task made use of the central executive, and the digit span task made use of the phonological loop.

Explanations for Forgetting

Interference.

Interference is an explanation for forgetting from long-term memory – two sets of information become confused.

• Proactive interference (pro=forward) is where old learning prevents the recall of more recent information. When what we already know interferes with what we are currently learning – where old memories disrupt new memories.
• Retroactive interference (retro=backward) is where new learning prevents the recall of previously learned information. In other words, later learning interferes with earlier learning – where new memories disrupt old memories.

Proactive and retroactive Interference is thought to be more likely to occur where the memories are similar, for example: confusing old and new telephone numbers. Chandler (1989) stated that students who study similar subjects at the same time often experience interference. French and Spanish are similar types of material which makes interference more likely.

Semantic memory is more resistant to interference than other types of memory.

Postman (1960) provides evidence to support the interference theory of forgetting. A lab experiment was used, and participants were split into two groups. Both groups had to remember a list of paired words – e.g., cat – tree, jelly – moss, book – tractor.

The experimental group also had to learn another list of words where the second paired word is different – e.g., cat – glass, jelly- time, book – revolver. The control group was not given the second list.

All participants were asked to recall the words on the first list. The recall of the control group was more accurate than that of the experimental group. This suggests that learning items in the second list interfered with participants’ ability to recall the list. This is an example of retroactive interference.

Although proactive and retroactive interference is reliable and robust effects, there are a number of problems with interference theory as an explanation for forgetting.

First, interference theory tells us little about the cognitive processes involved in forgetting. Secondly, the majority of research into the role of interference in forgetting has been carried out in a laboratory using lists of words, a situation that is likely to occur fairly infrequently in everyday life (i.e., low ecological validity). As a result, it may not be possible to generalize from the findings.

Baddeley states that the tasks given to subjects are too close to each other and, in real life; these kinds of events are more spaced out. Nevertheless, recent research has attempted to address this by investigating “real-life” events and has provided support for interference theory. However, there is no doubt that interference plays a role in forgetting, but how much forgetting can be attributed to interference remains unclear.

Retrieval failure

Retrieval failure is where information is available in long-term memory but cannot be recalled because of the absence of appropriate cues.

When we store a new memory, we also store information about the situation and these are known as retrieval cues. When we come into the same situation again, these retrieval cues can trigger the memory of the situation.

Types of cues that have been studied by psychologists include context, state, and organization.

• Context – external cues in the environment, e.g., smell, place, etc. Evidence indicates that retrieval is more likely when the context at encoding matches the context at retrieval.
• State – bodily cues inside of us, e.g., physical, emotional, mood, drunk, etc. The basic idea behind state-dependent retrieval is that memory will be best when a person’s physical or psychological state is similar to encoding and retrieval.

For example, if someone tells you a joke on Saturday night after a few drinks, you”ll be more likely to remember it when you”re in a similar state – at a later date after a few more drinks. Stone cold sober on Monday morning, you”ll be more likely to forget the joke.

• Organization – Recall is improved if the organization gives a structure that provides triggers, e.g., categories.

According to retrieval-failure theory, forgetting occurs when information is available in LTM but is not accessible. Accessibility depends in large part on retrieval cues.

Forgetting is greatest when context and state are very different at encoding and retrieval. In this situation, retrieval cues are absent, and the likely result is cue-dependent forgetting.

Evaluation (AO3)

People tend to remember material better when there is a match between their mood at learning and at retrieval. The effects are stronger when the participants are in a positive mood than when they are in a negative mood. They are also greater when people try to remember events having personal relevance.

A number of experiments have indicated the importance of context-based (i.e., external) cues for retrieval. An interesting experiment conducted by Baddeley indicates the importance of context setting for retrieval.

Baddeley (1975) asked deep-sea divers to memorize a list of words. One group did this on the beach, and the other group underwater. When they were asked to remember the words, half of the beach learners remained on the beach, and the rest had to recall underwater.

Half of the underwater group remained there, and the others had to recall on the beach. The results show that those who had recalled in the same environment (i.e., context) and who had learned recalled 40% more words than those recalling in a different environment. This suggests that the retrieval of information is improved if it occurs in the context in which it was learned.

A study by Goodwin investigated the effect of alcohol on state-dependent (internal) retrieval. They found that when people encoded information when drunk, they were more likely to recall it in the same state.

For example, when they hid money and alcohol when drunk, they were unlikely to find them when sober. However, when they were drunk again, they often discovered the hiding place. Other studies found similar state-dependent effects when participants were given drugs such as marijuana.

The ecological validity of these experiments can be questioned, but their findings are supported by evidence from outside the laboratory. For example, many people say they can’t remember much about their childhood or their school days. But returning to the house in which they spent their childhood or attending a school reunion often provides retrieval cues that trigger a flood of memories.

Eyewitness Testimony

Misleading information.

Loftus and Palmer investigated how misleading information could distort eyewitness testimony accounts.

Procedure : Forty-five American students formed an opportunity sample. This was a laboratory experiment with five conditions, only one of which was experienced by each participant (an independent measures experimental design ).

Participants were shown slides of a car accident involving a number of cars and asked to describe what had happened as if they were eyewitnesses. They were then asked specific questions, including the question, “About how fast were the cars going when they (hit/smashed/collided/bumped/contacted ) each other?”

Findings : The estimated speed was affected by the verb used. The verb implied information about the speed, which systematically affected the participants’ memory of the accident.

Participants who were asked the “smashed” question thought the cars were going faster than those who were asked the “hit” question. The participants in the “smashed” condition reported the highest speeds, followed by “collided,” “bumped,” “hit,” and “contacted” in descending order.

The research lacks mundane realism, as the video clip does not have the same emotional impact as witnessing a real-life accident, and so the research lacks ecological validity.

A further problem with the study was the use of students as participants. Students are not representative of the general population in a number of ways. Importantly they may be less experienced drivers and, therefore, less confident in their ability to estimate speeds. This may have influenced them to be more swayed by the verb in the question.

A strength of the study is it’s easy to replicate (i.e., copy). This is because the method was a laboratory experiment that followed a standardized procedure.

The Yerkes-Dodson effect states that when anxiety is at low and high levels, EWT is less accurate than if anxiety is at a medium level. Recall improves as anxiety increases up to an optimal point and then declines.

When we are in a state of anxiety, we tend to focus on whatever is making us feel anxious or fearful, and we exclude other information about the situation. If a weapon is used to threaten a victim, their attention is likely to focus on it. Consequently, their recall of other information is likely to be poor.

Clifford and Scott (1978) found that people who saw a film of a violent attack remembered fewer of the 40 items of information about the event than a control group who saw a less stressful version. As witnessing a real crime is probably more stressful than taking part in an experiment, memory accuracy may well be even more affected in real life.

However, a study by Yuille and Cutshall (1986) contradicts the importance of stress in influencing eyewitness memory. Twenty-one witnesses observed a shooting incident in Canada outside a gun shop in which one person was killed and a 2nd seriously wounded. The incident took place on a major thoroughfare in the mid-afternoon.

All of the witnesses were interviewed by the investigating police, and 13 witnesses (aged 15-32 yrs) agreed to a research interview 4-5 months after the event. The witnesses were also asked to rate how stressed they had felt at the time of the incident using a 7-point scale. The eyewitness accounts provided in both the police and research interviews were analyzed and compared.

The results of the study showed the witnesses were highly accurate in their accounts, and there was little change in the amount or accuracy of recall after five months. The study also showed that stress levels did not have an effect on memory, contrary to lab findings.

All participants showed high levels of accuracy, indicating that stress had little effect on accuracy. However, very high anxiety was linked to better accuracy. Participants who reported the highest levels of stress were most accurate (about 88% accurate compared to 75% for the less-stressed group).

One strength of this study is that it had high ecological validity compared with lab studies which tend to control variables and use student populations as research participants.

One weakness of this study was that there was an extraneous variable. The witnesses who experienced the highest levels of stress were actually closer to the event (the shooting), and this may have helped with the accuracy of their memory recall.

Reduced accuracy of information may be due to surprise rather than anxiety – Pickel found that identification was least accurate in high surprise conditions rather than high threat conditions – The weapon focus effect may be related to surprise rather than anxiety; therefore, research may lack internal validity.

Real-world application: We can apply the Yerkes-Dodson effect to predict that stressful incidents will lead to witnesses having relatively inaccurate memories as their anxiety levels would be above the optimum – We can avoid an over-reliance on eyewitness testimony that may have been impacted by anxiety.

The Cognitive Interview

The cognitive interview is a police technique for interviewing witnesses to a crime which encourages them to recreate the original context in order to increase the accessibility of stored information.

The cognitive interview involves a number of techniques:

Context Reinstatement

Trying to mentally recreate an image of the situation, including details of the environment, such as the weather conditions, and the individual’s emotional state, including their feelings at the time of the incident. This makes memories accessible and provides emotional and contextual cues.

Recall from a Changed Perspective

Recall in reverse order, report everything.

The interviewer encourages the witness to report all details about the event, even though these details may seem unimportant. Memories are interconnected so that recollection of one item may then cue a whole lot of other memories.

The Enhanced Cognitive Interview

The main additional features are:-

• Encourage the witness to relax and speak slowly.
• Offer comments to help clarify witness statements.
• Adapt questions to suit the understanding of individual witnesses.

One limitation is the cognitive interview is that it’s time-consuming to conduct and takes much longer than a standard police interview. It is also time-consuming to train police officers to use this method. This means that it is unlikely that the “proper” version of the cognitive interview is used.

Another limitation is that some elements of the cognitive interview may be more valuable than others. For example, research has shown that using a combination of “report everything” and “context reinstatement” produced better recall than any of the conditions individually.

A final criticism is that police personnel have to be trained, and this can be expensive and time-consuming.

Geiselman (1985) set out to investigate the effectiveness of the cognitive interview. Participants viewed a film of a violent crime and, after 48 hours, were interviewed by a policeman using one of three methods: the cognitive interview, a standard interview used by the Los Angeles Police, or an interview using hypnosis.

The number of facts accurately recalled and the number of errors made was recorded. The average number of correctly recalled facts for the cognitive interview was 41.2. For hypnosis, it was 38.0, and for the standard interview, it was 29.4.

A-Level Psychology Revision Notes

A-Level Psychology Attachment

Social Influence Revision Notes

Psychopathology Revision Notes

Psychology Approaches Revision for A-level

Research Methods: Definition, Types, & Examples

Issues and Debates in Psychology (A-Level Revision)

Final dates! Join the tutor2u subject teams in London for a day of exam technique and revision at the cinema. Learn more →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Psychology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Psychology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Study Notes

Working Memory Model

Last updated 7 Nov 2023

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Baddeley and Hitch (1974) developed the Working Memory Model (WMM), which focuses specifically on the workings of short-term memory (STM).

Atkinson and Shiffrin’s Multi-Store Model of memory (MSM) was criticised for over-simplifying STM (as well as LTM) as a single storage system, so the WMM alternative proposed that STM is composed of three, limited capacity stores:

• Central Executive – this manages attention, and controls information from the two ‘slave stores’ [below]
• An articulatory rehearsal process (‘inner voice’) of language, including any language presented visually to convert to a phonological state, for storage in the:
• Phonological store (‘inner ear’), which holds auditory speech information and the order in which it was heard (or any visually-presented language converted by the articulatory process)
• Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad – this temporarily retains visual and spatial information

A later addition was the episodic buffer which facilitates communication between the central executive and long term memory.

The three-store STM stemmed from research using a ‘dual-task technique’ (or ‘interference tasks’), whereby performance is measured as participants perform two tasks simultaneously. The following observations provided evidence to suggest different, limited-capacity STM stores process different types of memory:

• If one store is utilised for both tasks, then task performance is poorer than when they are completed separately, due to the store’s limited capacity e.g. repeating “the the the” aloud and reading some text silently would use the articulatory-phonological loop for both tasks, slowing performance.
• If the tasks require different stores, performance would be unaffected when performing them simultaneously e.g. repeating “the the the” aloud whilst performing a reasoning task (requiring attention, i.e. the central executive), or whilst following a mobile stimulus with your eyes (using the visuo-spatial sketchpad).

Evaluation of the Working Memory Model

• The WMM provides an explanation for parallel processing (i.e. where processes involved in a cognitive task occur at once), unlike Atkinson and Shiffrin’s MSM.
• A Shallice and Warrington (1974) case study reported that brain-damaged patient KF could recall verbal but not visual information immediately after its presentation, which supports the WMM’s claim that separate short-term stores manage short-term phonological and visual memories.
• The model was developed based on evidence from laboratory experiments, so confounding variables could be carefully controlled to produce reliable results (that can be replicated).
• Despite providing more detail of STM than the multi-store model, the WMM has been criticized for being too simplistic and vague, e.g. it is unclear what the central executive is, or its exact role in attention.
• Results from laboratory experiments researching the WMM will often have low ecological validity (i.e. may not relate to real life), as tasks such as repeating ‘the the the’ are arguably not representative of our everyday activities.
• Working memory model
• Baddeley and Hitch (1974)

You might also like

​duration of short-term memory, types of long term memory.

Quizzes & Activities

Multi-Store Model of Memory

A level psychology topic quiz - memory, memory key term glossary.

What Happens to Your Brain When You Make a Memory?

21st December 2015

Related products

Research Methods Exam Buster Revision Guide for AQA A-Level Psychology

03-4130-30296-03

Forensic Psychology Exam Buster Revision Guide for AQA A-Level Psychology

03-4130-30324-01

Biopsychology Exam Buster Revision Guide for AQA A-Level Psychology

03-4130-30181-03

• View full selection ›

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

The Multi-Store Model Of Memory

March 5, 2021 - paper 1 introductory topics in psychology | memory.

• Back to Paper 1 - Memory

Before we focus on the key characteristics of the Multi-Store Model of Memory it is important to develop an understanding of the definition of ‘memory.’

AO1, Definition of ‘Memory’: The process by which we retain information about events that have happened in the past. This includes fleeting (short term) memories as well as memories that last for longer (long term). Research has identified a number of key differences between short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM) in terms of the way these types of memory work.

A model of memory is a theory of how the memory system operates, the various parts that make up the memory system and how the parts work together. The Multi-Store Model of Memory as developed by Atkinson and Shiffrin describes the key characteristics of memory including; the sensory store, short term memory store and long term memory store.

AO1, Description The Multi-Store Model (MSM) of Memory: Atkinson and Shiffrin

The most well-known and influential model of memory was put forward by Atkinson and Shiffrin in 1968. They proposed that human memory involved:

• A flow of information through an information processing system.
• A system divided into 3 stages or storage components i.e., Sensory Register (SR), Short-term Memory (STM) and Long-term Memory ( LTM).
• Information passing from one stage to another in a fixed sequence.
• Constraints (or restrictions) at each stage in terms of capacity (size, i.e., how much each stage can hold), duration (length of time the memory stays in each stage) and coding (the way the information is stored at each stage e.g., visual images or sounds).

There are three limitations (or constraints) to the separate memory stores which are:

(1)  Coding:  The way that information is represented in the memory store (e.g., by sound [auditory], meaning [semantic] or image [visual]).

(2)  Duration:  The length of time that memories can be held within the memory store.

(3)  Capacity:  The amount of information that can be held in the memory store at any one time.

The Multi-Store model of Memory (MSM), AO1, Description:

According to  Atkinson and Shiffrin:

• The sensory store is constantly receiving information from the environment. Most of this information receives no  attention  and so is lost through However, if the information that enters the sensory stores is  attended  to (paid attention) then this information is encoded and passes through to the short term memory (STM).
• Once in the STM, information  ( if not  rehearsed) , can be lost through either  displacement  (this is because the STM has a  capacity of 7+/- 2  items) or  decay  (as the STM only has a  duration of 0-18 seconds).
• If information is  elaborative   rehearsed (over and over )  and the information is  understood,  then the information will be transferred /encoded into the  long term memory (LTM).
• The LTM can hold information for an unlimited about of time and has an unlimited capacity.
• When stored information is needed, it can be  retrieved  from the LTM back to the STM.
• Atkinson and Shiffrin proposed a direct link between rehearsal in the STM and the strength of the long term memory.

Evaluation, AO3 of The Multi-Store Memory Model

(1) Point:  Further research from brain scanning techniques has supported the Multi-Store Memory model and the idea of separate memory stores (i.e. a short term memory store and a long term memory store.  Evidence: Squire et al (1992)  used brain-scanning techniques and found that STM can be associated with activity in the prefrontal cortex and that LTM can be associated with activity in the hippocampus.  Evaluation: This is a strength because  it provides biological evidence that the different types of memory are processed by different parts of the brain and that the memory stores are distinct as the multi-store model suggests.

(2) Point:  Case studies of brain damaged patients (e.g. KF) have also offered support for the Multi-Store Model of memory.  Evidence:  Shallice and Warrington (1970),  reported the case of KF, who was brain damaged as a result of a motorcycle accident. His STM was severely impaired, however his LTM remained intact.  Evaluation:   This supports the  view that STM and LTM are separate and distinct stores and therefore supports the proposals of the Multi-Store Model of memory as it shows that it is possible to damage only one store in memory.

(3) Point: The main strength of the MSM come from support for the idea that at least two separate memory stores do exist (i.e. STM and LTM).  Evidence: Murdock’s (1962) Serial position effect (laboratory experiment):   Murdock argued that no matter how many words a person is shown and then asked to recall, items at the beginning  of the list are recalled to a greater degree than those in the middle, while words at the end have a greater recall than either the beginning or the middle. Words recalled at the beginnig are rfered to as the primacy effect, words remembered at the end of the list are refered to as the recency effect.   Evaluation: This supports the MSM because  the fact that participants remember words more at the beginning of the list is due to the fact that these words are rehearsed and are starting to pass into the LTM (as suggested by the MSM). Words in the middle of the list are not remembered as well due to the fact that these words are not rehearsed and therefore are lot through displacement. Finally, as suggested by the MSM, the words at the end are remembered well due to the fact that we can hold words in in our STM without rehearsal for up to 30 seconds.

Weaknesses:

(3) Point:  Case studies of brain damaged patients criticise the MSM.  Evidence:  The case of KF demonstrated that his deficit in STM was for verbal information and that the STM for visual material was normal.  Evaluation: This is a weakness because  it demonstrated that it is possible to damage only part of the STM going against the MSM idea that STM is unitary (suggesting that there may be more than one type of STM).

Click here to learn about the  Working Memory Model  as developed by Baddeley and Hitch.

• Psychopathology
• Social Psychology
• Approaches To Human Behaviour
• Biopsychology
• Research Methods
• Issues & Debates
• Teacher Hub
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• [email protected]
• www.psychologyhub.co.uk

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Start typing and press Enter to search

Cookie Policy - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy

Up Learn – A Level Psychology (AQA) – Memory

Evaluating the multi-store model of memory: patient kf case study.

The multi-store model predicts that if people have damage to their short-term memory, then they will also have damage to their long-term memory. But patients like patient KF have damage to their short-term memory without damage to their long-term memory. So, the first limitation of the multi-store model is that it isn’t supported by findings from case studies.

A*/A guaranteed or your money back

Really? Yes, really. Find out more about our A*/A Guarantee below.

Want to see the whole course?

No payment info required!

More videos on The Working Memory Model

Introduction (free trial)

Limitations of the Multi-store Model: Patient KF Case Study

Limitations of the Multi-store Model: Short-term Memory Stores (free trial)

Limitations of the Multi-store Model: the Role of Rehearsal (free trial)

Progress Quiz: Limitations of the Multi-store Model (free trial)

The Working Memory Model

Phonological Loop (free trial)

Sub-components of the Phonological Loop (free trial)

Rehearsal and the Word-length Effect (free trial)

Visuo-spatial Sketchpad (free trial)

Sub-components of the Visuo-spatial Sketchpad (free trial)

Episodic Buffer (free trial)

What is Memory?

Types of memory, types of long-term memory, memory accuracy: how good is our memory, exam questions: memory.

Last time we saw the story of patient KF, a man with impaired short-term memory but no damage to his long-term memory, whose condition challenged the multi-store model of memory.

Now, we already saw earlier, that the multi-store model says…

The multi-store model says that we have three memory stores: the sensory register, the short-term memory store, and the long-term memory store.

Information flows unidirectionally through the stores. To pass into short-term memory, information in the sensory register has to be paid attention to.

And to pass into the long-term memory store, information in short-term memory has to be rehearsed.

So, according to the multi-store model, to be stored in long-term memory, information has to first go through short-term memory. If it’s rehearsed, the information is then transferred to long-term memory.

But if it isn’t rehearsed in short-term memory, the information simply fades away.

So, the multi-store model predicts that…

The multi-store model predicts that a person can have damage to their long-term memory without their short-term memory being affected…

…But if a person’s short-term memory is damaged, they lose both their short and their long-term memories… because without being able to rehearse information in short-term memory, it can’t be transferred to long-term memory!

But, we also saw last time that patient KF’s motorbike accident impaired his short-term memory, but left his long-term memory intact.

And later case studies of other patients like KF also revealed similar findings: patients can damage their short-term memory without damaging their long-term memory!

So, a first limitation of the multi-store model is that it isn’t supported by findings from case studies of patients like KF.

Now, we’ll look at two more limitations of the multi-store model next.

But first, to sum up…

To sum it up, the multi-store model predicts that if people have damage to their short-term memory, then they will also have damage to their long-term memory.

But patients like patient KF have damage to their short-term memory without damage to their long-term memory.

So, the first limitation of the multi-store model is that it isn’t supported by findings from case studies.

psychologyrocks

Msm and case studies of people with brain injuries.

In your essay, it is important that you are able to link research evidence to specific theoretical claims. Case studies of people with acquired brain injuries have been particularly useful in providing support for one of MSM’s key claims, but the same studies have also highlighted some of the weaknesses of this model.

What is a case study?

Case studies allow us to gather in-depth information on areas where it may be impossible to carry out experiments. Clearly, from an ethical standpoint we cannot deliberately injure someone purely to see what behavioural and cognitive changes may result! Instead, scientists often make use of naturally occurring cases where someone has an acquired brain injury, meaning they were functioning perfectly well beforehand, i.e. they have been involved in an accident, had an illness that has affected their brain or undergone surgery for a tumour or to treat epilepsy, for example.

Case studies focuses on an individual or small group and use information from a variety of sources including medical and educational reports and records, interviews, standardised tests and observations, and so on to gather a wide range of detailed information. The use of multiple research methods is known as method triangulation.

Case studies generally lack control as the injury was naturally occurring, this said, they can inspire more scientific studies that are able to examine cause and effect.

As you may recall from the localisation topic, case studies focusing on people who have sustained brain damage allow researchers to explore the function of various brain regions through examining the impact of the damage on their behaviour and cognitive functioning.

Can you think of any scientific weaknesses of such studies?

Often there is no valid evidence of the person’s skill level prior to the brain injury, and therefore it is not possible to conclude with certainty that the brain injury has caused any issues the person appears to have, as these problems may have pre-dated the injury. This is clearly not always the case but worth bearing in mind 😉

The table below details three case studies conducted with people with brain injuries. Case studies like these indicate that there are different memory stores but perhaps it is too simple to think that there are only three stores, memory for different types of information seems to be situated in different areas. This is shown by HM and Clive Wearing’s unaffected procedural memories.

Use the worksheet above to find out more about these three case studies and think about how they could be used to support or refute the claims made by Atkinson and Shiffrin’s multistore model, i.e. that there are three separate memory stores through which information flows in a linear fashion, that short and long term memory are single (unitary) stores.

Clive Wearing

Find out more about the case of Clive Wearing using these clips from youtube:

HM – Henry Molaison

One interesting aspects of the HM case study is that although it is claimed HM was incapable of laying down new long term memories (anterograde amnesia) over time it was shown that he was able to learn a new skill; mirror drawing.

Learn more about HM with this podcast form the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t6zqv

Practice drawing stars like HM: Click below and scroll down to “ Milner Research Replication” .

https://opl.apa.org/src/index.html#/Demonstrations

Practice what you know about the HM case study and how it relates to MSM using this quizizz: https://quizizz.com/admin/quiz/5f74661a1bb349001ba0a3a5

The Case of KF

To learn more about the case of KF why not check out one of the original papers about this patient here :

Case study of KF Original Paper: warrington1969 

A clip of Warrington talking about KF

The following worksheet demonstrates how the case study of KF exemplifies all the key features of the case study as a research method in psychology, but is also useful for adding to your detailed knowledge of the aim, procedure, findings and conclusions of the study itself.

Share this:

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• Abnormal Psychology
• Assessment (IB)
• Biological Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminology
• Developmental Psychology
• Extended Essay
• General Interest
• Health Psychology
• Human Relationships
• IB Psychology
• IB Psychology HL Extensions
• Internal Assessment (IB)
• Love and Marriage
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Prejudice and Discrimination
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Research Methodology
• Revision and Exam Preparation
• Social and Cultural Psychology
• Studies and Theories
• Teaching Ideas

Limitations of the multi-store model of memory (Atkinson and Shiffrin, 1968)

Travis Dixon October 4, 2021 Cognitive Psychology

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Atkinson and Shiffrin’s MSM is over 50 years old yet it’s still in every introduction to Psychology textbook and still influences modern psychologists. But it’s not without its critics. This post will examine some of their critiques.

Because the MSM was so popular, it received a lot of criticism. But “…criticism could itself be viewed as a success, given the goal of science should be progress, and everyone should want to see old ideas be refined or replaced.” (Malmberg et al. 2019)

It’s difficult to find flaws with the MSM because if it had obvious flaws it wouldn’t have stood the test of time and still be mandatory material in most introduction to Psychology courses. Even experts struggle to find faults. Reviews of the MSM’s claims “…reveals them to be state-of-the-art today, uncovering, testing, and verifying fundamental processes of rehearsal, storage, and retrieval.” (Malmberg et al. 2019). That being said, we’ll review four common critiques of the MSM:

Atkinson and Shiffrin’s multi-store model of memory. (Wikicommons).

• Methodological limitations of the studies,
• Contradictory evidence,
• Oversimplification,
• Originality.
• The multi-store model of memory (Atkinson and Shiffrin, 1968)
• 5 things you didn’t know about the MSM
• Let’s make a D.E.A.L: evaluating theories in three simple steps

Methodological Limitations

The easiest (but least effective) way of critiquing a theory is by looking for methodological flaws in the supporting evidence. Laboratory experiments on memory like Peterson and Peterson’s and Glanzer and Cunitz’s use abstract, meaningless information to test subjects’ memory (e.g. trigrams or random word lists.) A&S themselves call these tasks “often meaningless.” It’s done to avoid prior knowledge affecting recall – how can you test someone’s ability to create new memories if the information you’re asking them to remember is already in their long-term memory? Thus, the information participants are asked to remember has to be meaningless in order to accurately test short-term memory.

But this raises the question of generalizability. To what extent can we use these findings to explain memory as it happens in real life? We don’t spend hours remembering meaningless information that has no personal relevance (although in exam season you might argue otherwise!) So can we really use findings from studies about trigrams to explain memory in other contexts? For instance, do you always have to rehearse information for it to be stored in your long-term memory?

A strong evaluation of generalizability would include real-life examples of memory of meaningful information that doesn’t need heaps of rehearsal.

Contradictory Evidence

Levels of processing.

Among numerous other critiques in their 1972 paper, Craik and Lockhart challenged the idea that rehearsal is the primary factor that influences the transfer of memory from the STS to the LTS. With their levels of processing model and supporting studies they showed that the depth with which information is processed can affect memory. They suggested three types of processing:

• Structural (based on physical shape; most shallow type of processing)
• Phonological (based on sound)
• Semantic (based on meaning; the deepest type of processing).

Information that is processed more deeply (e.g. semantically) will be remembered better than information that is processed superficially.

The results of their studies showed that how we process information in our STS affects the transfer to the LTS. This highlights one of the limitations of the MSM – it’s focus on maintenance rehearsal (saying things over and over) over other types of rehearsal and different ways of encoding information.

You can d ownload and read Craik and Lockhart’s original 1972 paper to find many more of their critiques of the multi-store model of memory.

The Primacy and Recency Effects

These have been used as evidence to support the MSM ( Read more ). However, one study showed a recency effect in students’ recall of US presidents (Roediger & Crowder, 1976) and another found a recency effect for rugby players recalling teams they’d played that season (Baddeley and Hitch, 1977). Why would a recency effect occur for information that was already in long-term memory? This information would have already been transferred to the long-term store, so theoretically a recency effect should not occur because the subject is not drawing this information from their short-term store. There must be another explanation, which challenges the idea that the recency effect supports the existence of a short-term store.

The peculiar case of KF

You probably know about the famous case study of HM – a man who lost the ability to make new memories. HM’s study supports the claim that short-term and long-term memory are different stores because HM could hold information in his STS but he could not make new memories (i.e. he could not transfer the information from his STS to his LTS). If memory was one single store then if he lost long-term storage abilities he would lose short-term storage as well.

So while you might know about HM, you might not know about KF. Like HM, KF also suffered brain damage but his was the result of a motorcycle accident when he was 17 years old. After the accident, his short-term memory was reduced drastically. He could only hold about two units of information in his working memory at any time (most people can hold around four). Remember that according to the MSM, information flows from the STS to the LTS. Because KF has almost zero capacity in his STS he should have an impaired ability to make new long-term memories. But this is not the case. Studies on KF found that his long-term memory abilities were normal. It seems from the studies that the information was bypassing the STS and going straight to KF’s LTS. This challenges the MSM’s claim that information flows from the STS to the LTS.

Oversimplification

Another critique of the MSM is that it oversimplified memory processes. For instance, the original theory focused primarily on maintenance rehearsal  as the main way that memories transfer from STS to LTS. Studies have shown that other types of rehearsal, such as elaborative rehearsal , are more effective. This raises another issue with the MSM – it treats all memories as the same. But does all information pass through the stores similarly? Does all information need the same amount of rehearsal to transfer?

Maintenance rehearsal  is a type of rote rehearsal which involves just reciting items over and over, whereas  elaborative rehearsal is when we rehearse information by making connections between the new information and what we already know.

These studies also focus on information processed verbally (i.e. listening to words and letters). Some studies focus on visual information as well, but what about other sensory information? Does the process of memory formation happen the same with tastes and smells? How could this be tested? Do we need to “rehearse” this information? A&S admit in their original paper that the studies focus primarily on AVL information (auditory-verbal-linguistic). Perhaps then the model might not apply to  all  types of sensory information.

Originality

Could we critique the theory based on its originality? It’s a stretch, but it’s not as if the distinction between short-term and long-term memories was a unique idea. William James, known as the father of American psychology, proposed this distinction as early as 1890. Also, they were not even the first to present these ideas. Murdoch (1967) presented his modal model which attempted “…to synthesize some recent theoretical conceptions; the components include sensory, short-term and long-term stores with three different forgetting mechanisms (decay, displacement and interference, respectively).” That being said, even his modal model drew on ideas from Atikinson and Shiffrin’s 1965 paper. So really it’s not a critique of the model perhaps as much as a question regarding the singular praise A&S seem to have received for the ideas of a multi-store model of memory.

Atkinson and Shiffrin’s original 1968 paper they did not “present a finished theory” but they “set forth a general framework within which specific models can be formulated.” (p91)

As a teacher and writer I don’t like to “give the answers” when it comes to critical thinking. But with theories like the MSM it’s quite tricky. It’s an extremely valid theory with scores of supporting studies. This makes it almost impossible for a novice psychologists just starting out in the subject to independently come up with unique evaluations. In this post I’ve tried to give some guiding points but still leaving enough room for students to add their own critical thinking.

Travis Dixon is an IB Psychology teacher, author, workshop leader, examiner and IA moderator.

Cognitive psychology of human memory (thesaurus)

Search from vocabulary.

Content language

• Any language

Concept information

Preferred term, definition(s).

• A patient described by Shallice & Warrington (1969 ; 1970) who suffered from short-term memory impairment (reduced digit span, no recency effect) with preserved long-term memory after a traumatic brain injury.

Broader concept(s)

Related concept(s).

• memory disorder
• parietal lobe
• recency effect
• short-term memory
• verbal span task
• K.F. patient

Belongs to group

• Neuropsychology

Bibliographic citation(s)

[Study type: empirical study / Access: closed]

• Frank Arnould

In other languages

• patient K.F.

Download this concept:

• Find Flashcards
• Why It Works
• Tutors & resellers
• Content partnerships
• Teachers & professors
• Employee training

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome TM

Entrance exams, professional certifications.

• Foreign Languages
• Medical & Nursing

Humanities & Social Studies

Mathematics, health & fitness, business & finance, technology & engineering, food & beverage, random knowledge, see full index, shallice and warrington, case of kf 1970 challenge msm flashcards preview, psychology > shallice and warrington, case of kf 1970 challenge msm > flashcards.

To investigate the relationship between LTM and STM, when STM is impaired

Participant+Prior Info

• suffered bike accident at 17, damage to parietal occipital lobe
• Developed Epilepsy, unable to repeat letters and numbers
• damage to STM, but LTM remained in tact
• Strings (verbal lists) of 1,2,3 and 4 items of three types of verbal material -Numbers -Letters -Words (4-5 letter word) K.F was asked to verbally repeat the strings/items after an auditory listening

KF could only able to repeat one item reliably

• Numbers were stronger than letters
• Later Experiments demonstrates KF strength in visual tasks instead of auditory

Experiment=KF severely damaged STM -Later experiment would demonstrate intact LTM Difference between auditory and visual memory capacity suggests two separate stores for these modalities

Challenge MSM

Contradicts the MSM theory and suggests that material in the LTM has first been processed in the STM -Contradict the linearity, that a damaged STM=limited LTM, not the case of KF

Case Study, one person

Carefully designed experiments

Limitations

No analysis of why numbers had a greater recall than words

No explanation of the process of recalling auditory information

Decks in Psychology Class (24):

• Models Of Memory
• Multi Store Memory Model
• Milner 1966 Case Of Hm, Msm Support
• Glanzer And Cunitz 1966 Support For Msm
• Shallice And Warrington, Case Of Kf 1970 Challenge Msm
• Evaluating Msm
• Working Memory Model
• Baddely Et. Al 1975 Experiment (Limitation Of Wmm Theory)
• Landry And Bartling Support For Wmm
• Evaluating Wmm
• Schema Theory
• Bartlett Et Al Schema Theory
• Thinking And Decision Making
• Kahneman And Tversky 1981 Dual System Theory
• Mclure Et Al Dual System Theory
• Cognitive Bias
• Kahneman And Tversky Cognitive Bias
• Research Methods Basics
• Research Methods Experiments
• Research Methods Interviews
• Case Study And Observation Research Method
• Correlational Research Method
• Case Study Introduction Components
• Case Study Case Of Hm Info
• Corporate Training
• Teachers & Schools
• Android App
• Help Center
• Law Education
• All Subjects A-Z
• All Certified Classes
• Earn Money!

• Social Science
• Cognitive Psychology

The KF Case Study supports the Working Memory

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

(For complaints, use another form )

Input it if you want to receive answer

Klippel–Feil syndrome: Should additional examination be conducted?

• Original Article
• Published: 27 April 2024

Cite this article

• Elif Evrim Ekin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1290-6291 1 &
• Muhittin Emre Altunrende   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3345-5821 2  

Klippel–Feil syndrome (KF) is a rare disease defined as single or multi-level cervical vertebra fusion. KF could be accompanied by other spinal anomalies or isolated, and in which case necessity of whole spine screening is not clearly known. KF is investigated in terms of prevalence, gender distribution, fusion types, and frequency of accompanying anomalies according to types of KF.

Approval from our hospital’s ethics committee was received for this single-center, retrospective study. Considering the exclusion criteria among the 40,901 cervical spine MRIs, 40,450 patients were included in the study. It was re-evaluated for KF, fusion level, classification, cervical scoliosis, and other musculoskeletal and spinal anomalies.

125 (0.309%) of 40,450 patients is diagnosed with KF, which is more common in women ( P  < 0.001). Single fused segment 106 (84.8%), multilevel fused segments 8 (6.4%), contiguous fused segments 11 (8.8%) are observed. Upper level KF is detected in 13 (10.4%) patients. The frequency of additional anomaly is significantly higher in upper level KF compared to other level fusions ( P  < 0.001, Chi-square t). The cervical scoliosis is diagnosed 34 (27%). In KF patients with scoliosis, the frequency of additional anomalies was significantly higher ( P  < 0.001, Chi-square t).

Klippel–Feil prevalence is 0.309%, it is frequently observed in women, and at C2–C3 level. Additional anomalies are especially associated with ‘contiguous fused segments’ and ‘upper level’ types. Klippel–Feil with scoliosis is an indicator of increased risk for associated anomalies, and examination of the whole spine is recommended.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Samartzis D, Lubicky JP, Herman J, Shen FH (2007) Faces of spine care: from the clinic and imaging suite Klippel–Feil syndrome and associated abnormalities: the necessity for a multidisciplinary approach in patient management. Spine J 7(1):135–137

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Samartzis D, Kalluri P, Herman J, Lubicky JP, Shen FH (2017) Clinical triad findings in pediatric Klippel–Feil patients. Scoliosis Spinal Disord 27(11):15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-016-0075-x

Article   Google Scholar  

Gruber J, Saleh A, Bakhsh W, Rubery PT, Mesfin A (2017) The prevalence of Klippel–Feil syndrome: a computed tomography-based analysis of 2,917 patients. Spine Deform 6(4):448–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2017.12.002

Moses JT, Williams DM, Rubery PT, Mesfin A (2019) The prevalence of Klippel–Feil syndrome in pediatric patients: analysis of 831 CT scans. J Spine Surg 5(1):66–71. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2019.01.02

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Thomsen MN, Schneider U, Weber M, Johannisson R, Niethard FU (1997) Scoliosis and congenital anomalies associated with Klippel–Feil syndrome types I-III. Spine 22:396–401

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Xue X, Shen J, Zhang J, Tian Y, Zhao H, Wang Y, Liang J, Li Z, Qiu G (2014) Klippel–Feil syndrome in congenital scoliosis. Spine 39(23):E1353–E1358. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000587

Klippel M, Feil A (1912) Un cas d’absence des vertebres cervicales. Avec cage thoracique remontant jusqu’a la base du crane (cage thoracique cervicale). Nouv Iconog Salpetriere 25:223–250

Google Scholar  

Pizzutillo PD, Woods M, Nicholson L, MacEwen GD (1994) Risk factors in Klippel–Feil syndrome. Spine 19(18):2110–2116

Moore WB, Matthews TJ, Rabinowitz R (1975) Genitourinary anomalies associated with Klippel–Feil syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 57(3):355–357

Mahiroğullari M, Ozkan H, Yildirim N, Cilli F, Güdemez E (2006) Klippel–Feil syndrome and associated congenital abnormalities: evaluation of 23 cases. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 40(3):234–239

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Braga M, Pederzoli M, Beretta S, Ferrarini M, Canovaro P, Arpaia G, Crespi V (2009) Agenesis of the right internal carotid artery and Klippel–Feil syndrome: case report. Spine 34(20):E740–E742. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b41181

Konstantinou DT, Chroni E, Constantoyiannis C, Dougenis D (2004) Klippel–Feil syndrome presenting with bilateral thoracic outlet syndrome. Spine 29(9):E189–E192. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200405010-00023

Paksoy Y, Seker M, Kalkan E (2004) Klippel-Feil syndrome associated with persistent trigeminal artery. Spine 29(9):E193–E196. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200405010-0002

Naikmasur VG, Sattur AP, Kirty RN, Thakur AR (2011) Type III Klippel–Feil syndrome: case report and review of associated craniofacial anomalies. Odontology 99(2):197–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-011-0004-7

Erol FS, Ucler N, Yakar H (2011) The association of Chiari type III malformation and Klippel–Feil syndrome with mirror movement: a case report. Turk Neurosurg 21(4):655–658

Karaman A (2011) Kahveci H (2011) Klippel–Feil syndrome and Dandy-Walker malformation. Genet Couns 22(4):411–415

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Satış S, Alparslan N, Tuna M, Dere O, Yetişgin A (2020) Bilateral multilevel cervical rib and bilateral omovertebra in Klippel-Feil syndrome. World Neurosurg 136:62–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.01.010

Samartzis D, Kalluri P, Herman J, Lubicky JP, Shen FH (2007) Superior odontoid migration in the Klippel–Feil patient. Eur Spine J 16(9):1489–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0280-z

Samartzis D, Herman J, Lubicky JP, Shen FH (2007) Sprengel’s deformity in Klippel–Feil syndrome. Spine 32(18):E512–E516. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318133fcf8

Nouri A, Patel K, Evans H, Saleh M, Kotter MRN, Heary RF, Tessitore E, Fehlings MG, Cheng JS (2019) Demographics, presentation and symptoms of patients with Klippel–Feil syndrome: analysis of a global patient-reported registry. Eur Spine J 28(10):2257–2265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06084-0

Öner A, Aşansu MA, Akman YE (2020) Sprengel deformity: comprehensive evaluation of concomitant spinal and extraspinal anomalies in 90 patients. Spine 45(18):E1150–E1157. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003523

Ulmer JL, Elster AD, Ginsberg LE, Williams DW (1993) Klippel–Feil syndrome: CT and MR of acquired and congenital abnormalities of cervical spine and cord. J Comput Assist Tomogr 17(2):215–224

Nguyen VD, Tyrrel R (1993) Klippel–Feil syndrome: patterns of bony fusion and wasp-waist sign. Skeletal Radiol 22:519–523

Samartzis DD, Herman J, Lubicky JP, Shen FH (2006) Classification of congenitally fused cervical patterns in Klippel–Feil patients: epidemiology and role in the development of cervical spine-related symptoms. Spine 31(21):E798-804. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000239222.36505.46

Samartzis D, Kalluri P, Herman J, Lubicky JP, Shen FH (2011) Cervical scoliosis in the Klippel–Feil patient. Spine 36(23):E1501–E1508. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823145e4

Download references

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Radiology Department, Gaziosmanpaşa Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey

Elif Evrim Ekin

Neurosurgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey

Muhittin Emre Altunrende

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elif Evrim Ekin .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Approval from our hospital’s ethics committee was obtained for this retrospective study and informed consent was waived.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ekin, E.E., Altunrende, M.E. Klippel–Feil syndrome: Should additional examination be conducted?. Eur Spine J (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08281-y

Download citation

Received : 09 December 2023

Revised : 09 December 2023

Accepted : 16 April 2024

Published : 27 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08281-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Klippel–Feil syndrome
• Fused vertebra
• Wasp-waist sign
• Omovertebral bone
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Satellite-based estimates of ground-level fine particulate matter during extreme events: A case study of the Moscow fires in 2010

• van Donkelaar, Aaron
• Martin, Randall V.
• Levy, Robert C.
• da Silva, Arlindo M.
• Krzyzanowski, Michal
• Chubarova, Natalia E.
• Semutnikova, Eugenia
• Cohen, Aaron J.

We estimate fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) concentrations daily using MODIS satellite observations of aerosol optical depth (AOD) for a major biomass burning event around Moscow during summer 2010. Evaluation of MODIS AOD with the Moscow AERONET site supports a MODIS-AOD error estimate of ±(0.05 + 0.2 × AOD) for this event. However, since the smoke was often thick (AOD > 4.0) and spatially variable, the standard MODIS algorithm incorrectly identifies some aerosol as cloud. We test relaxed cloud screening criteria that increase MODIS coverage by 21% and find excellent agreement with coincident operational retrievals ( r 2 = 0.994, slope = 1.01) with no evidence of false aerosol detection. We relate the resultant MODIS AOD to PM 2.5 using aerosol vertical profiles from the GEOS-Chem chemical transport model. Our estimates are in good agreement with PM 2.5 values estimated from in-situ PM 10 ( r 2 = 0.85, slope = 1.06), and we find that the relationship between AOD and PM 2.5 is insensitive to uncertainties in biomass burning emissions. The satellite-derived and in-situ values both indicate that peak daily mean concentrations of approximately 600 μg m -3 occurred on August 7, 2010 in the Moscow region of the Russian Federation. We estimate that exposure to air pollution from the Moscow wildfires may have caused hundreds of excess deaths.

Click to view more