Background and aim

1. Wilson, Kopelman and Kapur (2008) supports the multi-store model of memory.
2. The case is also evidence of the impact of neurological damage on behaviour.
3. Clive Wearing, a British man born in 1938, was an outstanding musician and a gifted musical scholar.
4. In 1985 he developed an influenza-type illness, later diagnosed as herpes simplex viral encephalitis, a virus which destroyed large sections of his brain.
5. The aim was to record the neuropsychological assessments and experiences of an individual with a severe and rare case of both anterograde and retrograde amnesia.
6. Anterograde amnesia is the inability to lay down new memories, and retrograde amnesia is the loss of memories from before the damage.

Method

1. The design was a longitudinal case study of one participant, producing mainly qualitative data alongside test scores.
2. The sample was a single participant, Clive Wearing, first referred to Wilson in 1985 and studied on many occasions over the following 21 years.
3. The materials were detailed observations, in-depth interviews, standardised tests of IQ and memory such as the Wechsler Memory Scale, and brain scans at intervals.
4. His own diaries were used as evidence of how he understood what had happened to him.

Results

1. His verbal and performance IQ had declined from his pre-illness level, although both were still in the average range.
2. His short-term memory was normal.
3. His long-term memory was severely affected.
4. He always scored zero on tests of delayed recall.
5. His episodic memory was severely affected, with some semantic problems as well.
6. He could not lay down new memories, and he had lost memories from before the illness, so he showed both anterograde and retrograde amnesia.
7. He retained the ability to talk, read, write, conduct and sight-read music.

Brain scans and past awareness

1. His brain differed from normal in the hippocampal formations, amygdala, mammillary bodies and temporal poles.
2. Damage to the hippocampal formations fits his inability to form new long-term memories.
3. His intact musical skills fit a cerebellum that the virus left undamaged.
4. For years he did not accept that he had a memory disorder, explaining his difficulties by saying he had not been conscious since he became ill.
5. Shown his own diaries, he agreed the handwriting was his, but said he had not been conscious when he wrote them and was conscious now for the first time.
6. In 1995 Wilson et al. suggested this belief might be a delusion.
7. They later concluded he was trying to make sense of why he could not remember, because he showed none of the other psychiatric features that go with delusions.

Conclusions

1. His temporal lobe damage was so severe that it explains why he did not recognise the existence of his past consciousness.
2. The case supports the multi-store model's claim that the stores are separate and distinct, because his two stores were affected to very different degrees.
3. It also supports the idea of different types of long-term memory, since his procedural memory stayed intact while his episodic and semantic memory were damaged.

Criticisms

1. Rich longitudinal data is a strength, because 21 years of assessments show the deficit was stable over time.
2. Agreement between methods is a strength, because standardised tests, brain scans, observations and interviews all point the same way, which raises validity.
3. An everyday setting is a strength, because the study followed memory in one man's daily life, which raises ecological validity.
4. Generalisability is a weakness, because it is hard to generalise about the effects of brain damage from one person, and someone else with similar damage might be affected differently.
5. The rarity of the case is a weakness, because his illness was rare and its effects were extreme, so conclusions about ordinary memory are limited.
6. Subjectivity is a weakness, because some of the commentary rested on the researchers' reading of his behaviour, which mattered because he could not easily explain his own experience.
7. Ethics is a weakness, because he was named rather than kept confidential, and he was tested again and again when the testing did not benefit him directly.

Turning this into marks

1. Name the method as a longitudinal case study of one participant, because writing that the researchers studied a man with amnesia does not secure the knowledge mark.
2. When a question asks how the case supports the multi-store model, give the results as two separate points: his normal short-term memory and his severely affected long-term memory.
3. Attach each criticism to a detail of the study, such as the single participant for generalisability or the naming of the participant for ethics.
4. The mark most often lost is quoting a figure for his memory span, which the study never fixes.