The Development of Associate Learning in School Age Children

Harel, Brian; Pietrzak, Robert H.; Snyder, Peter J.; Thomas, Elizabeth; Mayes, Linda C.; Maruff, Paul

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101750

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In comparison with research on working memory and cognitive control, the degree to which episodic memory contributes to academic achievement is less clear (Sander, Werkle‐Bergner, Gerjets, Shing, & Lindenberger, ). It is generally assumed that the ability to recall detailed accounts of past events is important for learning new material at school (Harel et al, ). However, the most common way to measure episodic memory is through the use of simple laboratory tests in which participants must learn a series of pairs of stimuli presented on the computer, and retrieve them after a brief delay (Alloway & Alloway, ; Alloway, Gathercole, Kirkwood & Elliott, ; Alloway & Passolunghi, ; Blakemore & Bunge, ; Bunge & Wright, ; Johnson, Miller Singley, Peckham, Johnson, & Bunge, ; Sander et al, ).…”

Section: Mathematical Definition and Psychological Interpretation Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Naturalistic Assessment of the Organization of Children's Memories Predicts Cognitive Functioning and Reading Ability

Mota

Weissheimer

Madruga

et al. 2016

Mind Brain and Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To explore the relationship between memory and early school performance, we used graph theory to investigate memory reports from 76 children aged 6–8 years. The reports comprised autobiographical memories of events days to years past, and memories of novel images reported immediately after encoding. We also measured intelligence quotient (IQ) and theory of mind (ToM). Reading and Mathematics were assessed before classes began (December 2013), around the time of report collection (June 2014), and at the end of the academic year (December 2014). IQ and ToM correlated positively with word diversity and word‐to‐word connectivity, and negatively with word recurrence. Connectivity correlated positively with Reading in June 2014 as well as December 2014, even after adjusting for IQ and ToM. To our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating a link between the structure of children's memories and their cognitive or academic performance.

show abstract

Section: Mathematical Definition and Psychological Interpretation Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Naturalistic Assessment of the Organization of Children's Memories Predicts Cognitive Functioning and Reading Ability

Mota

Weissheimer

Madruga

et al. 2016

Mind Brain and Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Dot Locations subtest of the CMS, on the other hand, showed a high incidence of ceiling effects (22%), even in younger children. Typically developing children and adolescents do show a large range of inter-individual variation in memory performance due to age-related changes in mnemonic strategies and emerging executive functions (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974 ; Baddeley, 2000 ; Baddeley et al, 2011 ; Harel et al, 2014 ). Uttl ( 2005 ) discussed the adverse effects of low ceilings in commonly used memory tests, such as the verbal paired-associate test from the Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS, Wechsler, 1945 , 1987 ; Wechsler, 1997 , 2008 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pair Test: A computerised measure of learning and memory

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is increasing interest in the assessment of learning and memory in typically developing children as well as in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. However, neuropsychological assessments have been hampered by the dearth of standardised tests that enable direct comparison between distinct memory processes or between types of stimulus materials. We developed a tablet-based paired-associate learning paradigm, the Pair Test, based on neurocognitive models of learning and memory. The aims are to (i) establish the utility of this novel memory tool for use with children across a wide age range, and (ii) examine test validity, reliability and reproducibility of the construct. The convergent validity of the test was found to be adequate, and higher test reliability was shown for the Pair Test compared to standardised measures. Moderate test–retest reproducibility was shown, despite a long time interval between sessions (14 months). Moreover, the Pair Test is able to capture developmental changes in memory, and can therefore chart the developmental trajectory of memory and learning functions across childhood and adolescence. Finally, we used this novel instrument to acquire normative data from 130 typically developing children, aged 8–18 years. Age-stratified normative data are provided for learning, delayed recall and delayed recognition, for measures of verbal and non-verbal memory. The Pair Test thus provides measures of learning and memory accounting for encoding, consolidation and retrieval processes. As such, the standardised test results can be used to determine the status of learning and memory in healthy children, and also to identify deficits in paediatric patients at risk of damage to the neural network underlying mnemonic functions.

show abstract

“…The CogState recommended total number of errors across all rounds was Model A's outcome variable, while the number of errors from the first test round (i.e., the round after the first learning trial) was chosen for Model B to tap more onto EF. The CPAL is considered to measure both EF and learning (Harel et al, 2011(Harel et al, , 2014O'Donnell et al, 2011). Moderate correlations between the CPAL/the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Japanese language version of the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia have been reported (Chou et al, 2015;Yoshida et al, 2011;Racine et al, 2016).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stimuli are mostly nonverbal and include pictures, mazes, and playing cards, minimizing cultural bias (Zhong et al, 2013). A benefit with CogState is that for some tasks, different outcome measures can be utilized depending on which neuropsychological ability is being measured (see, for example, Harel et al, 2014;Pietrzak et al, 2008). Like other computerized tests, CogState offers increased reliability and standardization of stimulus presentation, more accurate reaction time measurements, and a greater ease of administration in comparison to examiner administered pen and paper tests, making it a good alternative for time-efficient testing of large groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Latent Structure of Executive Functioning/Learning Tasks in the CogState Computerized Battery

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tested whether executive functioning (EF)/learning tasks from the CogState computerized test battery show a unitary latent structure. This information is important for the construction of composite measures on these tasks for applied research purposes. Based on earlier factor analytic research, we identified five CogState tasks that have been labeled as EF/learning tasks and examined their intercorrelations in a new sample of Finnish birth cohort mothers ( N = 233). Using confirmatory factor analyses, we compared two single-factor EF/learning models. The first model included the recommended summative scores for each task. The second model exchanged summative scores for first test round results for the three tasks providing these data, as initial task performance is expected to load more heavily on EF. A single-factor solution provided a good fit for the present five EF/learning tasks. The second model, which was hypothesized to tap more onto EF, had slightly better fit indices, χ2(5) = 1.37, p = .93, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .02, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .00, 90% CI = [.00–.03], comparative fit index (CFI) = 1.00, and more even factor loadings (.30–.56) than the first model, χ2(5) = 4.56, p = .47, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .00, 90% CI = [.00–.09], CFI = 1.00, factor loadings (.20–.74), which was hypothesized to tap more onto learning. We conclude that the present CogState sum scores can be used for studying EF/learning in healthy adult samples, but call for further research to validate these sum scores against other EF tests.

show abstract

The Development of Associate Learning in School Age Children

Cited by 7 publications

References 62 publications

A Naturalistic Assessment of the Organization of Children's Memories Predicts Cognitive Functioning and Reading Ability

A Naturalistic Assessment of the Organization of Children's Memories Predicts Cognitive Functioning and Reading Ability

The Pair Test: A computerised measure of learning and memory

Latent Structure of Executive Functioning/Learning Tasks in the CogState Computerized Battery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About