Why a neuromaturational model of memory fails: Exuberant learning in early infancy

Abstract

The characteristics of memory in infants and adults seem vastly different. The neuromaturational model attributes these differences to an ontogenetic change in the basic memory process, namely, to the hierarchical maturation of two distinct memory systems. The early-maturing (implicit) system is functional during the first third of infancy and supports the gradual learning of perceptual and motor skills; the late-maturing (explicit) system supports representations of contextually specific events, relationships, and associations. An alternative model holds that the basic memory process does not change, but what infants and adults select to encode for learning does. This ontogenetic change in selective attention has been mistaken for an ontogenetic shift in the basic memory process. Over the last 25 years, evidence from transfer studies with developing rats and human infants has revealed that the first third of infancy is actually a period of exuberant learning that ends, not coincidentally, at the same age that the late-maturing memory system presumably emerges. This article reviews data from recent studies of sensory preconditioning, potentiation, associative chains, and transitive inference with human infants that support this conclusion-data for which the neuromaturational model cannot account. Fast mapping is a general learning mechanism that accounts for this evidence.

Reinstatement of an extinguished fear conditioned response in infant rats

“…This rationale is in accordance with the theoretical position raised by relevant authors in the field of developmental psychobiology (Campbell and Spear 1972;Spear 1984;Spear and Rudy 1991;Spear and Riccio 1994;Rovee-Collier and Giles 2010). These authors have pointed out that when studying the ontogeny of learning capacities, it is critical to control procedural factors that may differentially affect the performance of subjects of different ages (Campbell and Spear 1972;Spear 1984;Spear and Rudy 1991;Spear and Riccio 1994;Rovee-Collier and Giles 2010). This issue is important because differences in learning capacities may be confounded with differences in sensitivity to experimental conditions.…”

“…However, more recent evidence of recovery after extinction in infant rats brings this argument into question, and has led us to study which variables may critically affect the persistence of extinction during infancy. This rationale is in accordance with the theoretical position raised by relevant authors in the field of developmental psychobiology (Campbell and Spear 1972;Spear 1984;Spear and Rudy 1991;Spear and Riccio 1994;Rovee-Collier and Giles 2010). These authors have pointed out that when studying the ontogeny of learning capacities, it is critical to control procedural factors that may differentially affect the performance of subjects of different ages…”

“…In the light of these findings, rather than postulating a qualitatively different mechanism for extinction during infancy, it may be more appropriate to view the problem in terms of which variables could differentially modulate the extinction effect across the different stages of ontogeny. In answering this question it seems important to consider that infants can respond to experimental conditions in a way that is different-not only quantitatively but also qualitatively-to older organisms (Campbell and Spear 1972;Spear 1984;Spear and Riccio 1994;Rovee-Collier and Giles 2010). For example, Spear and collaborators reported procedures that favored contextual or trace conditioning in infants, but not in older animals-such procedures sometimes retarding learning in the latter case (McKinzie and Spear 1995;Spear 1998, 2004).…”

Sensory preconditioning in newborn rabbits: from common to distinct odor memories

“…Extinction of CS1 eliminates CS2 in sensory preconditioning only (Rizley and Rescorla 1972), suggesting that this learning process is primarily mediated by associative chains (CS2 CS1 response). However, the organization of associative memory in sensory preconditioning could be different in newborns as ontogenetic differences have been reported in rodents and humans, with better abilities in such paradigms in younger organisms (for reviews, see Spear and Kucharski 1984;Rovee-Collier and Giles 2010). Until now, chemosensory preconditioning was demonstrated in newborn rats (Cheslock et al 2003), but the question of the dependence vs. independence of the induced CSs memories was not evaluated.…”

Signs for Developing Reading : Sign Language and Reading Development in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children

“…This applies for DHH children who primarily use speech and for children who primarily rely on sign language. There are several cognitive paradigms that can be used with infants during the first year of life (e.g., Baillargeon et al, 2016;Bauer, 2006;Rovee-Collier & Giles, 2010), and can thus be used even before implantation of CI (Kral & Sharma, 2012). Of particular interest in relation to the present work are imitation paradigms, which have been used to assess both social (e.g., Oostenbroek, Slaughter, Nielsen, & Suddendorf, 2013) and cognitive (e.g., Sundqvist, Nordqvist, Koch, & Heimann, 2016) skills in infants.…”