Cargando…
Why Word Learning is not Fast
Upon fast mapping, children rarely retain new words even over intervals as short as 5 min. In this study, we asked whether the memory process of encoding or consolidation is the bottleneck to retention. Forty-nine children, mean age 33 months, were exposed to eight 2- or-3-syllable nonce neighbors o...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Research Foundation
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289981/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22393326 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00041 |
_version_ | 1782224926021779456 |
---|---|
author | Munro, Natalie Baker, Elise McGregor, Karla Docking, Kimberly Arculi, Joanne |
author_facet | Munro, Natalie Baker, Elise McGregor, Karla Docking, Kimberly Arculi, Joanne |
author_sort | Munro, Natalie |
collection | PubMed |
description | Upon fast mapping, children rarely retain new words even over intervals as short as 5 min. In this study, we asked whether the memory process of encoding or consolidation is the bottleneck to retention. Forty-nine children, mean age 33 months, were exposed to eight 2- or-3-syllable nonce neighbors of words in their existing lexicons. Didactic training consisted of six exposures to each word in the context of its referent, an unfamiliar toy. Productions were elicited four times: immediately following the examiner’s model, and at 1-min-, 5-min-, and multiday retention intervals. At the final two intervals, the examiner said the first syllable and provided a beat gesture highlighting target word length in syllables as a cue following any erred production. The children were highly accurate at immediate posttest. Accuracy fell sharply over the 1-min retention interval and again after an additional 5 min. Performance then stabilized such that the 5-min and multiday posttests yielded comparable performance. Given this time course, we conclude that it was not the post-encoding process of consolidation but the process of encoding itself that presented the primary bottleneck to retention. Patterns of errors and responses to cueing upon error suggested that word forms were particularly vulnerable to partial decay during the time course of encoding. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3289981 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Frontiers Research Foundation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-32899812012-03-05 Why Word Learning is not Fast Munro, Natalie Baker, Elise McGregor, Karla Docking, Kimberly Arculi, Joanne Front Psychol Psychology Upon fast mapping, children rarely retain new words even over intervals as short as 5 min. In this study, we asked whether the memory process of encoding or consolidation is the bottleneck to retention. Forty-nine children, mean age 33 months, were exposed to eight 2- or-3-syllable nonce neighbors of words in their existing lexicons. Didactic training consisted of six exposures to each word in the context of its referent, an unfamiliar toy. Productions were elicited four times: immediately following the examiner’s model, and at 1-min-, 5-min-, and multiday retention intervals. At the final two intervals, the examiner said the first syllable and provided a beat gesture highlighting target word length in syllables as a cue following any erred production. The children were highly accurate at immediate posttest. Accuracy fell sharply over the 1-min retention interval and again after an additional 5 min. Performance then stabilized such that the 5-min and multiday posttests yielded comparable performance. Given this time course, we conclude that it was not the post-encoding process of consolidation but the process of encoding itself that presented the primary bottleneck to retention. Patterns of errors and responses to cueing upon error suggested that word forms were particularly vulnerable to partial decay during the time course of encoding. Frontiers Research Foundation 2012-02-29 /pmc/articles/PMC3289981/ /pubmed/22393326 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00041 Text en Copyright © 2012 Munro, Baker, McGregor, Docking and Arculi. http://www.frontiersin.org/licenseagreement This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial License, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Munro, Natalie Baker, Elise McGregor, Karla Docking, Kimberly Arculi, Joanne Why Word Learning is not Fast |
title | Why Word Learning is not Fast |
title_full | Why Word Learning is not Fast |
title_fullStr | Why Word Learning is not Fast |
title_full_unstemmed | Why Word Learning is not Fast |
title_short | Why Word Learning is not Fast |
title_sort | why word learning is not fast |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289981/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22393326 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00041 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT munronatalie whywordlearningisnotfast AT bakerelise whywordlearningisnotfast AT mcgregorkarla whywordlearningisnotfast AT dockingkimberly whywordlearningisnotfast AT arculijoanne whywordlearningisnotfast |