Position distinctiveness, item familiarity, and presentation frequency affect reconstruction of order in immediate episodic memory☆

Healy, Alice F.; Shea, Kathleen M.; Kole, James A.; Cunningham, Thomas F.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.011

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These data suggest continuity across the lifespan in basic memory processes. Like the infants we observed, older children and adults have better memory for distinctive items (e.g., Arndt & Reder, 2003; Healy et al, 2008). Moreover, the mechanisms of comparison described by Gentner and her colleagues (Gentner & Gunn, 2001; Gentner & Namy, 1999; Markman & Gentner, 1997) contribute to cognitive processes in infancy.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

“…For example, adults remember more details of pictures when they are compared with other, similar pictures (Markman & Gentner, 1997), remembering both similarities and differences of instances when contexts encourage comparison (Gentner & Gunn, 2001). In addition, older children and adults have better memory for distinctive items (e.g., Arndt & Reder, 2003; Healy, Shea, Kole, & Cunningham, 2008). Thus, the same processes seem to operate at very different points in development.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two are better than one: Comparison influences infants’ visual recognition memory

Oakes¹,

Kovack-Lesh

Horst

2009

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a large literature on infants' memory for visually presented stimuli, the processes underlying visual memory are not well understood. Two studies with 4-month-old infants (N = 60) examined the effects of providing opportunities for comparison of items on infants' memory for those items. Experiment 1 revealed that 4-month-old infants failed to show evidence of memory for an item presented during familiarization in a standard task (i.e., when only one item was presented during familiarization). In Experiment 2, infants showed robust memory for one of two different items presented during familiarization. Thus, infants' memory for the distinctive features of individual items was enhanced when they could compare items.Infants can form memories for visual scenes and, with development, encode them faster and retain information for longer (see Fagan, 1990, for a review). Following 10-to 60-s of exposure to an item, 6-month-old infants consistently look longer at a novel stimulus than at the nowfamiliar stimulus (i.e., exhibiting a novelty preference) (Fagan, 1990). Younger infants, however, are less consistent, exhibiting novelty preferences (e.g., Pascalis, de Haan, Nelson, & de Schonen, 1998;Slater, Morison, & Rose, 1982), familiarity preferences (e.g., Richards, 1997;Rose, Gottfried, Mello-Carmina, & Bridger, 1982), or no clear preference (e.g., Wetherford & Cohen, 1973). Whether or not young infants exhibit a novelty preference depends on factors such as the amount of familiarization (Courage & Howe, 2001;Rose et al., 1982) and the particular stimuli (Fagan, 1974). Further, over repeated testing, infants exhibit familiarity preferences early in learning, and exhibit null or novelty preferences with more study time (e.g., Roder, Bushnell, & Sasseville, 2000). Indeed, Fagan (1990) concluded that the question "Can young infants demonstrate recognition memory?" can only be answered with "What are they being asked to recognize?" Because much or our knowledge about infants' visual memory comes from this task, it is critical to understand the processes that underlie novelty preferences. Rose and her colleagues (Rose, Feldman, & Jankowski, 2004) have shown not only developmental differences in infants' memory in this task (e.g., how much encoding time is necessary for infants to remember an item), but also similarities between infants' and adults' memory. Two seminal studies identified one potentially important factor that contributes to young infants' novelty preference (Fagan, 1978;Rose et al., 1982). Although each involved several manipulations, both studies reported the counter-intuitive finding that infants familiarized with two different items showed stronger memory than did infants familiarized with only one item. This finding is counter-intuitive (Gentner & Gunn, 2001). In addition, older children and adults have better memory for distinctive items (e.g., Arndt & Reder, 2003;Healy, Shea, Kole, & Cunningham, 2008). Thus, the same processes seem to operate at very different points in development.Befor...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Two are better than one: Comparison influences infants’ visual recognition memory

Oakes¹,

Kovack-Lesh

Horst

2009

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The average size of the encoding effect was very nearly equal across the retrieval conditions and in fact was slightly (and, of course, nonsignificantly) greater in the separate condition. Thus, the experiments provide no evidence that retrieval processes drive design effects in the case of perceptual interference or generation (Healy, Shea, Kole, & Cunningham, 2008, come to a similar conclusion in research on serial position effects).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 68%

Assessing a retrieval account of the generation and perceptual-interference effects

Mulligan

Peterson

2008

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Past studies involving nonhuman primates (Castro & Larsen, 1992), and humans (Gupta et al, 2004) demonstrated significant primacy and recency effects in nonspatial tasks. Another study demonstrated primacy and recency in spatial list tasks in humans (Healy et al, 2007). Differences with the present study may represent a species-based diversity in list memory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and the radial arm maze: Spatial memory and serial position effects.

Craig

Rand²,

Mesch³

et al. 2012

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated spatial memory in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) through the use of a radial arm maze. The study consisted of a total of three separate experiments. In the first two experiments, the ability of the dogs to successfully remember previously unentered arms was evaluated. The third experiment was similar to the first two, but also examined the nature of the serial position effect. Performance in all three experiments was better than expected solely by random choices. Dogs showed a much better memory for spatial locations presented earlier in a spatial list compared with those presented in the middle. Based on the present results, we suggest that the radial arm maze assesses canine spatial memory and that dogs show a primacy effect.

show abstract

Position distinctiveness, item familiarity, and presentation frequency affect reconstruction of order in immediate episodic memory☆

Cited by 11 publications

References 28 publications

Two are better than one: Comparison influences infants’ visual recognition memory

Two are better than one: Comparison influences infants’ visual recognition memory

Assessing a retrieval account of the generation and perceptual-interference effects

Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and the radial arm maze: Spatial memory and serial position effects.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About