Substituting new details for old? Effects of delaying postevent information on infant memory

Abstract

How that which we remember is selectively distorted by new information was studied in 3-month-old infants who learned to move a particular crib mobile by operant foot kicking. Infants who were passively exposed to a novel mobile 1, 2, or 3 days later subsequently treated the novel mobile as if they had actually been trained with it. Also, after the longest exposure delay, they no longer recognized the original mobile. Likewise, when the novel mobile was exposed after the longest delay, it could prime the forgotten training memory in a reactivation paradigm, but the original mobile no longer could. These data reveal that what we remember about an event is selectively distorted by what we encounter later. Moreover, the later in the retention interval we encounter new postevent information, the greater is its impact on retention.

Updating reactivated memories in infancy: II. Time passage and repetition effects

“…Research with both infants and adults has found that the original memory is modified more easily when it is older (Belli, Windschitl, McCarthy, & Winfrey, 1992;Boller et al, 1996;Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978;Muzzio & RoveeCollier, 1996;Rovee-Collier et al, 1994). In Experiment 2, therefore, we examined the possibility that the age of a reactivated memory might influence its malleability.…”

“…During this time, their memory of the training mobile is highly specific and cannot be retrieved by a generalized cue. Once infants have forgotten the details of the original mobile, however, the details of a novel mobile can be substituted for the details of the original mobile in the training memory, producing a permanent memory modification (Boller et al, 1996;Muzzio & Rovee-Collier, 1996;Rovee-Collier et al, 1994). Likewise, 6-month-olds who learn to move the mobile in a distinctive context remember the details of that particular context and discriminate it from a novel context for 3 to 5 days after training.…”

“…Because the term ''distortion'' carries a connotation of error or inaccuracy, we use the term ''modification'' as a synonym. who learn to move a mobile by kicking remember the details of that particular mobile and discriminate it from a novel mobile for 2 to 3 days after training (Hayne, Greco, Earley, Griesler, & Rovee-Collier, 1986;Rovee-Collier et al, 1994;. During this time, their memory of the training mobile is highly specific and cannot be retrieved by a generalized cue.…”

The Performance of Infants Born Preterm and Full-term in the Mobile Paradigm: Learning and Memory

“…Second, experiments were conducted at each infant's home. Some studies 56,57 have shown the importance of context for learning and memory in this paradigm. Additional research is needed to determine whether these results generalize to a clinical setting.…”

Visual‐preference and operant measures of infant memory

“…Because their memory of the familiar training stimulus was presumably strongest at this time, we predicted that infants of both ages would look longer at the novel mobile and also would kick signi®cantly above baseline. In addition, when we had previously tested 3-month-olds with either a novel mobile or the training (familiar) mobile 3 to 4 days after training, they had treated them equivalently, responding as robustly to the novel mobile as to the familiar training one (Rovee-Collier, Adler, & Borza, 1994;Rovee-Collier & Sullivan, 1980). In Experiment 3, therefore, we also gave a group of 3-montholds a paired-comparison test 4 days after the end of training and predicted that they also would kick robustly, evidencing operant retention, but would treat the novel and familiar mobiles equivalently and look at them nondifferentially (A corresponding group of 6-month-olds was not tested because infants of this age operantly discriminate a novel mobile from the training one for 2 weeks, which is the longest delay that they also exhibit operant retention; Borovsky & Rovee-Collier, 1990;Hill et al, 1988).…”