Post-mortem examinations | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
- Revision Notes
- Aug 3
- 18 min read
Updated: Aug 23
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 45 minutes
These Post-mortem examinations A-Level Psychology revision notes explain how examining the brain after death can contribute to understanding brain structure and function. You will explore how psychologists connect abnormalities or damage found during an examination with behaviour recorded during the person’s life. You will also evaluate the method and compare it with measuring blood oxygenation in the living brain and recording electrical brain activity.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define a post-mortem examination.
Explain how post-mortem examinations contribute to understanding the brain.
Explain how brain structure may be connected with behaviour recorded during life.
Evaluate the strengths and limitations of post-mortem evidence.
Compare post-mortem examinations with fMRI, EEGs and ERPs.
Apply methodological evaluation to an unfamiliar investigation.
Revision Notes 📚
Post-mortem examinations A-Level Psychology revision overview
A post-mortem examination involves examining a person’s brain after they have died.
Psychologists may investigate whether the brain contains:
Damage.
Unusual structures.
Differences in particular areas.
Evidence of disease or injury.
These findings may be compared with information about the person’s behaviour or psychological functioning while they were alive.
The general process is:
Behaviour recorded during life → brain examined after death → structural findings identified → possible relationship inferred
The AQA specification names post-mortem examinations as a required way of studying the brain but does not prescribe detailed procedures or particular evaluation points. The explanations below provide standard conceptual elaboration of this named method.
What is examined?
During a post-mortem examination, researchers investigate the physical structure of the brain.
They may examine:
The overall size and shape of brain areas.
Evidence of damage.
Differences between the two hemispheres.
Particular regions linked with functions.
Brain tissue at a more detailed level.
Connections between areas.
Researchers may compare the findings with:
Medical records.
Psychological assessments.
Observations of behaviour.
Reports of cognitive difficulties.
Information about an injury or disorder.
Findings from other brains.
The examination provides structural evidence rather than a recording of live brain activity.
Structural information
Structural information concerns the physical anatomy of the brain.
A post-mortem examination may identify:
Whether an area is damaged.
Where damage is located.
The extent of an abnormality.
Differences between the examined brain and comparison brains.
Whether several regions appear to have been affected.
This differs from functional information, which concerns activity occurring while the brain is working.
Structural information | Functional information |
Physical anatomy of the brain | Activity occurring within the brain |
Damage or unusual tissue | Changes associated with a task |
Examined after death | Usually measured in the living brain |
Shows what the brain looks like | Shows what the brain is doing |
Does not record activity over time | Can show activity during a task |
How post-mortem examinations contribute to psychology
Post-mortem examinations have contributed to psychology by allowing researchers to investigate relationships between:
Brain structure.
Damage to particular areas.
Cognitive functioning.
Language.
Movement.
Sensory processing.
Behaviour recorded during life.
Suppose a person experienced a particular cognitive difficulty while alive. After their death, researchers may discover damage in a specific brain area.
If similar relationships are observed in other cases, the findings may support the view that the area contributes to that function.
The conclusion must remain cautious because the examination shows an association between the structural difference and the behaviour. It does not necessarily prove that the structural difference was the only cause.
Post-mortem examinations and localisation of function
Localisation of function is the principle that particular brain areas perform particular functions.
Post-mortem examinations can contribute to localisation research by following this sequence:
A person displays a specific behavioural or cognitive difficulty.
Their behaviour is recorded while they are alive.
Their brain is examined after death.
Damage or abnormality is found in a particular area.
Researchers infer that the area may have contributed to the affected function.
For example, if damage in one area is repeatedly associated with a particular type of language difficulty, this may support the localisation of that language function.
This contribution prepares you for motor, sensory and language centres in the brain.
Linking behaviour during life with brain structure
The value of a post-mortem examination depends partly on the quality of information collected while the person was alive.
Useful records might include:
The precise nature of a behavioural difficulty.
When the difficulty began.
Whether it changed over time.
Which abilities remained unaffected.
Medical treatment received.
The circumstances surrounding any brain injury.
Results from psychological or neurological assessments.
Detailed records allow researchers to make a more precise comparison between behaviour and later anatomical findings.
If the records are vague or incomplete, it becomes harder to establish what function may have been affected.
Comparing the brain with a control
Researchers may compare the examined brain with one or more control brains.
A control brain should ideally be similar in relevant ways, such as:
Age.
Biological characteristics.
General health.
Cause of death.
Medical history.
The comparison may help researchers identify whether a structural feature is unusual.
Without an appropriate comparison, it may be difficult to determine whether an observed feature:
Is connected with the person’s behaviour.
Reflects ordinary individual variation.
Is related to age or illness.
Developed after the behaviour began.
Was caused by another factor.
A control does not remove every possible alternative explanation, but it strengthens the investigation.
Post-mortem examinations and individual cases
Post-mortem examinations are especially valuable when the person had:
A rare disorder.
An unusual pattern of brain damage.
A specific cognitive difficulty.
A well-documented history.
A condition that cannot easily be recreated or investigated experimentally.
Researchers cannot deliberately cause brain damage in a participant to test its effects.
Post-mortem evidence therefore allows psychologists to investigate naturally occurring cases that would otherwise be unavailable.
This can generate new hypotheses about brain function.
An example of the reasoning process
Consider the following hypothetical case:
During her life, a patient could understand spoken language but had considerable difficulty producing fluent speech. After her death, researchers identified damage in a particular area of the brain.
Researchers might infer that:
The damaged area contributed to speech production.
Speech production and understanding may involve different systems.
Language functions may be localised to some extent.
However, they should also consider:
Whether other brain areas were damaged.
Whether treatment affected the brain.
Whether the damage occurred before or after the speech difficulty began.
Whether the person had other medical conditions.
Whether the same relationship is found in other cases.
One post-mortem case can provide valuable evidence, but it rarely settles an explanation by itself.
Direct examination of brain tissue
A strength of the method is that researchers can examine brain tissue directly.
They are not relying only on:
An image generated from blood-flow changes.
Electrical activity recorded at the scalp.
A participant’s description of their experience.
Behavioural performance on a task.
Researchers can investigate the physical tissue itself and locate structural abnormalities in detail.
This may provide evidence that is not visible using a living-brain technique.
However, direct examination of structure does not provide direct evidence about how the brain functioned moment by moment during the person’s life.
Contribution to theory development
Post-mortem findings can contribute to psychological theory.
The process may involve:
An unusual pattern of behaviour is observed.
A structural difference is identified after death.
Researchers propose a relationship between the area and the function.
The explanation generates predictions.
Other cases or brain-imaging studies are used to test those predictions.
The explanation is supported, refined or challenged.
Post-mortem evidence may therefore be the beginning of a wider research programme rather than the final answer.
Contribution to cognitive neuroscience
Cognitive neuroscience links internal mental processes with biological structures and activity.
Post-mortem examinations can contribute by linking:
Cognitive performance recorded during life.
Behavioural difficulties.
Structural findings after death.
For example, a psychologist may use records of memory, language or decision-making difficulties and compare these with the brain areas found to be damaged.
The mental process is not directly observed, so researchers still make an inference from behavioural and biological evidence.
The connection between these levels of explanation is explored through links between cognition and biology.
Contribution to understanding brain damage
Post-mortem examinations may reveal:
The exact location of damage.
How widely damage had spread.
Whether several areas were involved.
Whether apparent difficulties were associated with damage to one area or a wider network.
Structural changes not identified during the person’s lifetime.
This information can help researchers reconsider explanations based on earlier observations.
For example, a difficulty initially attributed to one area might later be connected with damage across several regions.
Contribution to understanding plasticity and recovery
A post-mortem examination may provide evidence of structural changes following injury or experience.
This could contribute to understanding:
Whether nearby areas changed after damage.
Whether connections appeared to have reorganised.
How extensive the original injury was.
Which structures remained intact.
However, the method examines only the final state of the brain. It cannot track the process of change as it happens.
Living-brain methods are needed to investigate changes across time.
These ideas connect with how the brain changes following experience or injury and the recovery of functions after brain trauma.
Strength: detailed structural information
One strength of post-mortem examinations is the detailed structural information they can provide.
Researchers may identify:
Small areas of damage.
Abnormal tissue.
Differences in deep brain structures.
Connections that are difficult to examine using some scanning techniques.
Several areas affected by the same condition.
This detail can strengthen attempts to connect an anatomical feature with behaviour recorded during life.
The method is particularly useful when a broad scan did not reveal the full extent of an abnormality.
Strength: access to areas throughout the brain
Researchers can examine parts of the brain that may be difficult to study accurately using surface electrical recordings.
EEGs and ERPs detect electrical activity through electrodes on the scalp. This provides limited information about the precise location of activity, particularly when it originates deep within the brain.
A post-mortem examination allows direct investigation of deep structures and physical connections.
This gives the method stronger structural precision than scalp-based electrical recording.
Strength: investigation of rare cases
Rare cases may provide valuable opportunities to examine the relationship between brain structure and behaviour.
A person may have:
Highly localised damage.
An unusual cognitive difficulty.
A rare medical condition.
An extensively documented history.
Studying such cases can reveal distinctions between functions that would be difficult to detect in a typical sample.
For example, one ability may be seriously affected while another remains intact. This pattern may suggest that the abilities depend on different brain systems.
Strength: evidence that cannot be obtained experimentally
It would be unethical to deliberately damage a participant’s brain in order to investigate the effect.
Post-mortem examinations allow psychologists to study naturally occurring damage without creating it.
This means the method can contribute to questions that cannot be addressed through a controlled experiment.
However, because the damage was not manipulated, researchers have less control over:
Its location.
Its severity.
When it occurred.
Other biological changes.
The person’s medical treatment.
The ethical advantage therefore comes with a methodological limitation.
Strength: contribution to early understanding of localisation
Post-mortem examinations contributed to the development of explanations linking specific brain areas with particular functions.
This was especially valuable before modern living-brain scanning methods were available.
Researchers could compare:
A person’s distinctive behavioural difficulty.
The location of damage found after death.
Repeated findings helped psychologists develop early theories of localisation.
Modern scanning techniques can now investigate these explanations in living participants, but post-mortem evidence remains historically and scientifically important.
Strength: comparison with evidence from other methods
Post-mortem evidence can be combined with:
fMRI findings.
EEG or ERP recordings.
Behavioural assessments.
Medical case histories.
Observations of recovery after injury.
When several methods produce consistent conclusions, psychologists may have greater confidence in the explanation.
For example:
fMRI may identify an area active during a task.
Post-mortem evidence may show that damage to the same area is associated with loss of the function.
Behavioural testing may describe precisely what ability was affected.
This use of different methods can provide a fuller account than any one method alone.
Limitation: the brain is examined only after death
The clearest limitation is that researchers cannot observe the brain functioning while the person performs a task.
A post-mortem examination cannot directly show:
Electrical activity.
Blood-flow changes.
The timing of neural processing.
How areas interact during behaviour.
Changes in activity across different conditions.
It provides a final structural record rather than a live measure.
Researchers therefore connect evidence collected at different times:
Behaviour during life.
Brain structure after death.
This gap makes conclusions more difficult.
Limitation: retrospective evidence
Post-mortem research is often retrospective, meaning that researchers look backwards from the structural findings to earlier behaviour.
This creates several difficulties:
Records may be incomplete.
Behaviour may not have been assessed systematically.
The person may not have completed the tests now considered important.
Reports may rely on memory.
Researchers may select information that fits the anatomical finding.
A structural difference discovered after death can influence how researchers interpret earlier behaviour.
This may introduce researcher bias.
Limitation: cause and effect cannot be established easily
Finding damage in a brain area and a behavioural difficulty does not automatically show that the damage caused the difficulty.
Alternative explanations include:
Another damaged area caused the behaviour.
Several regions working together were affected.
The behavioural difficulty contributed indirectly to biological changes.
A medical condition caused both the damage and the behaviour.
Treatment affected the brain.
The structural difference existed without causing the difficulty.
Post-mortem evidence is therefore often correlational.
Researchers should state that an area may be associated with or contribute to a function unless stronger evidence is available.
Limitation: damage may not be isolated
Naturally occurring brain damage rarely affects one perfectly isolated area.
An injury or illness may:
Damage several regions.
Affect neural connections.
Cause gradual changes.
Alter blood supply.
Produce secondary damage.
Affect the functioning of intact areas.
If a person displayed a behavioural difficulty, researchers may be unable to identify which part of this complex damage was responsible.
This limits the precision of localisation conclusions.
Limitation: individual differences
Every brain differs to some extent.
People also differ in:
Age.
Health.
Experience.
Education.
Medication.
Lifestyle.
Genetic inheritance.
Medical history.
A structural feature found in one person may not have the same significance in another.
Rare cases can generate valuable hypotheses, but findings from one brain may not generalise to the wider population.
Replication across other cases and methods is therefore important.
Limitation: intervening variables
An intervening variable is a factor that could influence the relationship being investigated.
In post-mortem research, possible intervening variables include:
Age at death.
Medication.
Long-term illness.
Cause of death.
Substance use.
Treatment history.
Time between death and examination.
Changes to tissue after death.
These variables may affect brain structure independently of the behaviour being investigated.
Researchers often cannot control them because the study was not planned from the beginning of the person’s life.
Limitation: changes after death
Brain tissue begins to change after death.
The condition of the tissue may be affected by:
The time before preservation.
How it was stored.
The cause of death.
Medical procedures.
The method of examination.
These changes can make interpretation more difficult.
A feature identified during the examination may not perfectly represent the brain’s condition while the person was alive.
Careful preservation and standardised procedures can reduce this problem but cannot recreate a functioning living brain.
Limitation: comparison brains may be unsuitable
A researcher may compare the brain with one described as typical or healthy.
However, a poor control match can create misleading differences.
For example, the control may differ in:
Age.
Biological characteristics.
Health.
Cause of death.
Medication.
Life experience.
A difference between the brains might therefore result from a confounding variable rather than the psychological function under investigation.
Selecting an appropriate control is essential but often difficult.
Limitation: researcher interpretation
Post-mortem evidence does not interpret itself.
Researchers decide:
Which areas to examine.
Which structural features are important.
Which behaviour should be connected with the finding.
Which comparison brains to use.
How to classify an abnormality.
Which alternative explanations to consider.
Knowledge of the person’s behaviour may affect how researchers interpret the brain.
Using independent investigators, clear procedures and evidence from other methods can reduce this risk.
Limitation: ethical issues
Post-mortem research raises ethical questions relating to:
Consent.
Respect for the deceased person.
Permission from relatives where appropriate.
Confidentiality.
Handling of biological tissue.
Sensitive information about the individual and family.
Ideally, informed consent for research should have been obtained before death.
Where this is unavailable, researchers must follow relevant ethical and legal procedures.
The scientific value of the examination does not remove the need to treat the person and their information with dignity.
Post-mortem examinations compared with fMRI
Post-mortem examinations and fMRI provide different types of biological evidence.
Feature | Post-mortem examination | fMRI |
Brain studied | After death | Living brain |
Main information | Detailed physical structure | Activity associated with blood oxygenation |
Directness | Direct examination of tissue | Indirect measure of neural activity |
Activity during a task | Cannot be recorded | Can be measured |
Repeated measurements | Not possible | May be possible |
Spatial information | Can provide detailed anatomical evidence | High spatial resolution |
Temporal information | Does not measure live timing | Relatively poor temporal resolution |
Participant experience | No task can be completed during examination | Participant completes a task in a scanner |
Main contribution | Structure, damage and abnormalities | Functional activity and localisation |
Strength of post-mortem over fMRI
Post-mortem examinations allow direct investigation of brain tissue.
fMRI detects the BOLD signal, which is an indirect measure based on changes in blood oxygenation.
A post-mortem examination may therefore reveal:
Small structural abnormalities.
Tissue damage.
Differences not visible on an activity map.
Detailed physical relationships between areas.
Strength of fMRI over post-mortem examination
fMRI studies the living brain.
Researchers can:
Present a task.
Observe behaviour.
Measure activity at the same time.
Compare experimental conditions.
Scan the same participant again.
This allows a closer connection between a current cognitive process and current biological activity.
The strengths and limitations of this method are reviewed in blood oxygenation and functional brain maps.
Post-mortem examinations compared with EEGs
Feature | Post-mortem examination | EEG |
Main measurement | Physical structure | General electrical activity |
Brain studied | After death | Living brain |
Temporal resolution | No live temporal measurement | Very high |
Spatial resolution | Detailed structural location | Relatively poor |
Output | Anatomical findings | Continuous brain-wave recording |
Deep structures | Can be examined directly | Difficult to locate precisely |
Repeated use | One examination | Can record the participant repeatedly |
An EEG is particularly useful when researchers want to know when electrical activity changes.
A post-mortem examination is more useful when researchers want detailed information about physical damage or anatomy.
Post-mortem examinations compared with ERPs
An ERP is an averaged electrical response linked to a particular event.
Feature | Post-mortem examination | ERP |
Information | Structural anatomy | Event-specific electrical activity |
Timing | Cannot record live processing | High temporal resolution |
Location | Can identify physical damage precisely | Relatively poor spatial resolution |
Task | No live task | Specific repeated stimulus or event |
Data | Brain tissue and anatomy | Averaged electrical waveform |
Main inference | Structure may be connected with behaviour recorded during life | Electrical response may be connected with cognitive processing |
ERPs provide much stronger evidence about the timing of a cognitive response.
Post-mortem examinations provide stronger evidence about the detailed physical structure of the brain.
Comparing all four methods
Method | Main information | Major strength | Major limitation |
fMRI | Changes in blood oxygenation associated with activity | High spatial resolution | Relatively poor temporal resolution and indirect measurement |
EEG | Continuous electrical activity | Very high temporal resolution | Poor spatial resolution |
ERP | Event-specific electrical activity | Precise timing of responses to stimuli | Requires repeated trials and has poor spatial resolution |
Post-mortem | Physical structure after death | Detailed direct examination of tissue | Cannot record live brain activity |
There is no single best method for every research question.
The appropriate method depends on whether the psychologist wants to investigate:
Structure.
Location.
Timing.
General electrical activity.
A response to a particular event.
A living or deceased brain.
Methods can be complementary
The methods may be used together rather than treated as competing alternatives.
For example:
Behavioural testing identifies a specific difficulty.
EEG or ERP records its timing.
fMRI identifies areas active during the task.
A later post-mortem examination identifies detailed structural damage.
Researchers compare the evidence from all methods.
Agreement between different methods can strengthen a conclusion.
Disagreement may show that the original explanation was too simple.
Applying post-mortem evidence to a scenario
Consider the following investigation:
During his life, a patient had serious difficulty recognising objects despite having adequate vision. After his death, researchers found damage in a particular brain region. They compared his brain with the brain of another person who had not shown the same difficulty.
A developed explanation could state:
The post-mortem examination provides structural evidence about the location of damage.
Researchers can compare the damage with records of the patient’s recognition difficulty.
The control brain helps identify whether the structural feature was unusual.
The findings may suggest that the damaged area contributed to object recognition.
The evidence does not prove that the area worked alone.
Differences in age, illness or treatment could confound the comparison.
The method cannot show the brain functioning during recognition.
A method for answering application questions
Use the following structure.
1. Identify the behaviour during life
State the cognitive or behavioural difficulty that was recorded.
2. Identify the structural finding
Explain what damage or abnormality was found after death.
3. Connect the evidence cautiously
State that the structural difference may have contributed to the behaviour.
4. Consider comparison evidence
Explain whether an appropriate control brain was used.
5. Identify alternative explanations
Consider other damaged areas, illness, medication, age or treatment.
6. State the main methodological limitation
Explain that the method cannot record the brain functioning during the behaviour.
Writing an effective comparison
A direct comparison should use one feature at a time.
For example:
Post-mortem examinations provide detailed structural information by allowing researchers to examine brain tissue directly after death. In contrast, fMRI studies the living brain and produces functional information based on changes in blood oxygenation. fMRI can therefore show activity while a task is completed, whereas a post-mortem examination must connect anatomical findings with behaviour recorded at an earlier time.
This is stronger than giving an isolated description of each method.
Writing an effective evaluation paragraph
A developed evaluation paragraph might state:
One strength of post-mortem examinations is that researchers can examine brain tissue directly and identify detailed structural damage. This has contributed to understanding localisation by linking particular behavioural difficulties with damage in specific areas. However, the examination occurs only after death, so researchers cannot observe the area functioning during the behaviour. The relationship is therefore inferred retrospectively and does not establish cause and effect.
This paragraph:
Identifies a strength.
Explains its contribution.
Introduces a connected limitation.
Explains the effect on the conclusion.
Overall evaluation
Post-mortem examinations have made an important contribution by providing detailed structural evidence about the brain.
Their strengths include:
Direct examination of brain tissue.
Detailed investigation of damage and abnormalities.
Access to deep structures.
Investigation of rare cases.
Contribution to localisation theories.
Evidence that cannot be created experimentally.
Potential comparison with findings from living-brain methods.
Their limitations include:
No measurement of live brain activity.
Retrospective interpretation.
Difficulty establishing cause and effect.
Naturally occurring damage may affect several areas.
Individual differences and intervening variables.
Possible changes to tissue after death.
Problems selecting suitable controls.
Ethical issues involving consent and dignity.
A balanced judgement is that post-mortem examinations are particularly valuable for detailed structural evidence, but they are less useful for investigating when and how the living brain performs a task. Their contribution is strongest when their findings are combined with fMRI, EEG, ERP and behavioural evidence.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Post-mortem examination | An examination of a person’s brain after they have died. | Define the method or explain how structural evidence is collected. |
Structural information | Information about the physical anatomy of the brain. | Identify the main type of evidence produced. |
Functional information | Information about activity occurring within the brain. | Contrast post-mortem evidence with fMRI. |
Localisation of function | The principle that particular brain areas perform particular functions. | Explain a contribution of post-mortem evidence. |
Brain damage | Physical injury or abnormality affecting brain tissue. | Connect structural findings with behaviour during life. |
Control brain | A comparison brain used to identify whether a structural feature is unusual. | Evaluate the quality of a post-mortem investigation. |
Retrospective evidence | Evidence interpreted by looking back at events or behaviour that occurred earlier. | Explain a limitation of connecting anatomy with previous behaviour. |
Intervening variable | A factor that may influence the relationship being investigated. | Evaluate medication, illness or age as alternative explanations. |
Correlation | A relationship between two variables that does not necessarily establish causation. | Explain why damage and behaviour may be associated without proving cause. |
fMRI | A method detecting changes in blood oxygenation associated with brain activity. | Compare functional imaging with structural examination. |
EEG | A continuous recording of electrical brain activity. | Compare timing information with post-mortem structure. |
ERP | An averaged electrical response associated with a particular event. | Compare event-specific activity with anatomical evidence. |
Spatial resolution | The ability to identify where activity or a structural feature is located. | Compare the location information produced by brain-study methods. |
Temporal resolution | The ability to identify when activity occurs. | Explain why post-mortem examinations cannot study live timing. |
Cognitive neuroscience | The study of relationships between mental processes and biological functioning. | Explain how behaviour during life may be linked with brain structure. |
Researcher bias | The possibility that expectations influence decisions or interpretations. | Evaluate retrospective interpretation of brain tissue. |
Informed consent | Agreement to participate based on adequate information. | Discuss an ethical consideration in post-mortem research. |
Generalisation | Applying findings beyond the individual or sample studied. | Evaluate evidence from rare individual cases. |
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying that a post-mortem examination records brain activity.
Why this is incorrect:The brain is examined after death, so live electrical or metabolic activity cannot be recorded.
How to improve:Describe the method as producing detailed structural evidence.
Mistake: Saying that post-mortem examinations and fMRI produce the same information.
Why this is incorrect:Post-mortem examinations directly investigate anatomy, whereas fMRI detects changes in blood oxygenation associated with activity.
How to improve:Compare structural information with functional information.
Mistake: Claiming that damage proves an area is solely responsible for a function.
Why this is incorrect:The damage may affect several regions or connections, and the function may depend on a network.
How to improve:State that the area may contribute to the function.
Mistake: Assuming that a relationship between damage and behaviour establishes causation.
Why this is incorrect:Illness, medication or damage elsewhere may explain the behaviour.
How to improve:Consider alternative explanations and use cautious causal language.
Mistake: Ignoring the person’s behavioural records.
Why this is incorrect:The anatomical finding becomes more useful when it can be connected with clearly documented behaviour during life.
How to improve:Explain what behavioural or cognitive difficulty was recorded.
Mistake: Treating one individual case as representative of everyone.
Why this is incorrect:Brains, experiences and medical histories differ between individuals.
How to improve:Explain why evidence should be replicated across cases or supported by other methods.
Mistake: Saying post-mortem examinations have high temporal resolution.
Why this is incorrect:They cannot record when live brain activity occurs.
How to improve:Use EEGs or ERPs when discussing precise timing.
Mistake: Saying post-mortem examinations are less detailed than EEGs.
Why this is incorrect:EEGs provide broad electrical recordings with relatively poor spatial resolution, while post-mortem examinations can provide detailed anatomical information.
How to improve:Distinguish structural detail from temporal information.
Mistake: Comparing methods without using direct comparative language.
Why this is incorrect:Separate descriptions do not fully answer a comparison question.
How to improve:Use words such as “whereas”, “both”, “unlike” and “in contrast”.
Mistake: Ignoring ethical issues because the person has died.
Why this is incorrect:Consent, confidentiality, dignity and appropriate handling of tissue remain important.
How to improve:Identify the relevant ethical procedure and explain why it matters.
Mistake: Treating detailed biological evidence as automatically valid.
Why this is incorrect:The tissue may have changed after death, controls may be unsuitable and researchers must interpret the findings.
How to improve:Evaluate how the evidence was collected, compared and interpreted.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Which one of the following best describes a post-mortem examination?
A. Recording electrical activity using scalp electrodes
B. Detecting changes in blood oxygenation
C. Examining the physical structure of the brain after death
D. Measuring neurotransmitters crossing a synapse
[1 mark]
Question 2
Define a post-mortem examination.
[2 marks]
Question 3
Explain how post-mortem examinations may contribute to understanding localisation of function.
[4 marks]
Question 4
Explain why information about a person’s behaviour during life is important in a post-mortem investigation.
[4 marks]
Question 5
A patient experienced a specific language difficulty during life. After the patient died, researchers identified damage in one brain area.
Explain one conclusion the researchers might draw and one reason why they should be cautious.
[4 marks]
Question 6
Explain one strength and one limitation of post-mortem examinations as a way of studying the brain.
[6 marks]
Question 7
Compare the information produced by post-mortem examinations and fMRI.
[4 marks]
Question 8
Explain one difference between a post-mortem examination and an EEG relating to temporal and spatial information.
[4 marks]
Question 9
Researchers examine the brain of a person who had experienced a rare memory difficulty. They compare it with the brain of a person who had not experienced the difficulty.
Explain two factors the researchers should consider when selecting and using the comparison brain.
[4 marks]
Question 10
Evaluate post-mortem examinations as a way of studying the brain.
In your answer, compare post-mortem evidence with evidence from brain-scanning techniques.
[8 marks]
Comments