Why word learning is not fast
Upon fast mapping, children rarely retain new words even over intervals as short as five minutes. 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 neigh...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2012-02-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Psychology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00041/full |
| _version_ | 1818790609909972992 |
|---|---|
| author | Natalie eMunro Elise eBaker Karla eMcgregor Karla eMcgregor Kimberley eDocking Joanne eArciuli |
| author_facet | Natalie eMunro Elise eBaker Karla eMcgregor Karla eMcgregor Kimberley eDocking Joanne eArciuli |
| author_sort | Natalie eMunro |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Upon fast mapping, children rarely retain new words even over intervals as short as five minutes. 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-minute-, 5-minute-, 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-minute retention interval and again after an additional 5 minutes. Performance then stabilized such that the 5-minute 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-18T14:58:11Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6abd36390b3641e9a07d9fb53b42f6ef |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1664-1078 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-18T14:58:11Z |
| publishDate | 2012-02-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Psychology |
| spelling | doaj.art-6abd36390b3641e9a07d9fb53b42f6ef2022-12-21T21:04:00ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782012-02-01310.3389/fpsyg.2012.0004116937Why word learning is not fastNatalie eMunro0Elise eBaker1Karla eMcgregor2Karla eMcgregor3Kimberley eDocking4Joanne eArciuli5University of SydneyUniversity of SydneyUniversity of IowaUniversity of SydneyUniversity of SydneyUniversity of SydneyUpon fast mapping, children rarely retain new words even over intervals as short as five minutes. 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-minute-, 5-minute-, 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-minute retention interval and again after an additional 5 minutes. Performance then stabilized such that the 5-minute 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.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00041/fullMemoryword learningencodingconsolidationfast mappingretention |
| spellingShingle | Natalie eMunro Elise eBaker Karla eMcgregor Karla eMcgregor Kimberley eDocking Joanne eArciuli Why word learning is not fast Frontiers in Psychology Memory word learning encoding consolidation fast mapping retention |
| 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 | Memory word learning encoding consolidation fast mapping retention |
| url | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00041/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT natalieemunro whywordlearningisnotfast AT eliseebaker whywordlearningisnotfast AT karlaemcgregor whywordlearningisnotfast AT karlaemcgregor whywordlearningisnotfast AT kimberleyedocking whywordlearningisnotfast AT joanneearciuli whywordlearningisnotfast |