Attribute dominance in memory development.

Means, Barbara; Rohwer, William D.

doi:10.1037/0012-1649.12.5.411

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of several behavioral investigations suggest that preschool and elementary school age children are quite capable of automatically extracting semantic information (e.g., Geis & Hall, 1976;Means & Rohwer, 1976;Perlmutter, Schork & Lewis, 1982). However, it is still possible that the young child's episodic memory traces, relative to those of the adult, are more heavily weighted by sensory compared to conceptual (i.e., semantic) features.…”

Section: Behavioral Studies Of Priming and Memory During Cognitive Dementioning

confidence: 99%

Event‐Related Potential Investigations of Cognitive Development and Aginga

Friedman¹

1992

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of the results of the studies of cognitive development and normal aging suggests a large degree of commonality in both behavioral and ERP effects across a wide age range. Whether measured in young children, adolescents, young, middle-aged or elderly adults, the size of the ERP repetition effect did not differ among the various age groups. This was true whether memory was tested directly during continuous recognition or indirectly during variants of semantic categorization tasks. Similarly, in the studies of adult aging, the degree of RT facilitation during the semantic task did not differ with age and, in both the studies of cognitive development and aging, the degree of RT prolongation during the explicit tasks did not appear to differ as a function of age. Moreover, in the studies of adult aging, the effects of three versus two exposures of a word assessed in the PM session (TABLE 1), modulated RT similarly in all three age groups. These data argue for continuity of information processing across a very wide age range during both direct and indirect memory tasks, when retention is assessed during the recognition (for explicit testing) and repetition (for implicit testing) phases of the task. Since ERP and RT modulation do not appear to differ with age during the retrieval phases of these experiments, how can the performance differential seen in young children and older adults be explained? Some evidence comes from the ERP data recorded during the study phases of our explicit tasks. During continuous recognition, both young children and elderly adults did not show the typical subsequent "memory effect." In the case of the children, the subsequently unrecognized ERP was larger than the subsequently recognized ERP, whereas for the older adults, there was no difference between these two ERPs. Moreover, during these same tasks, the young children did show the "crossover" (new greater than old) pattern for slow wave activity, whereas the older adults did not. Since these ERP findings were obtained during the acquisition phase (i.e., to new items that had to be encoded for subsequent retrieval), the data argue for encoding difficulties as one means of explaining the performance differences seen at the two ends of the age spectrum. However, since the older adults displayed a different new/old pattern for slow wave activity, the two age groups may differ qualitatively in the strategies employed to encode items for subsequent retrieval.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

show abstract

Section: Behavioral Studies Of Priming and Memory During Cognitive Dementioning

confidence: 99%

Event‐Related Potential Investigations of Cognitive Development and Aginga

Friedman¹

1992

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Younger children, especially first graders who just have began to learn reading might have taken more time for decoding the word pairs than older children and this may have confounded the variables reading time and ST. Furthermore, there is evidence that there are age differences concerning the way in which children and adults process pictures and words (e.g., Ackerman, 1981; Cramer, 1972, 1973; Means & Rohwer, 1976). B.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐paced study time as a cue for recall predictions across school age

Hoffmann-Biencourt

Lockl

Schneider

et al. 2010

British J of Dev Psycho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work on metacognition indicates that monitoring is sometimes based itself on the feedback from control operations. Evidence for this pattern has not only been shown in adults but also in elementary schoolchildren. To explore whether this finding can be generalized to a wide range of age groups, 160 participants from first to eighth grade participated in a study based on a self-paced study time (ST) allocation paradigm. In contrast to previous studies, picture pairs instead of word pairs were used as stimuli to compensate for reduced reading skills in younger participants. Actual ST and judgments of learning (JOLs) made at the end of each study trial were used as core variables. The results are in line with previous findings, in that children's JOLs decreased with increasing ST, suggesting that JOLs were based on the memorizing effort heuristic that easily learned items are more likely to be remembered. Weaker inverse relationship between JOLs and ST was found for the younger children. Overall, these results underline the importance of mnemonic cues in shaping metacognitive feelings not only in adults but also in older children and expose a developmental trend in their use along childhood.

show abstract

“…The recognition errors of first and second graders are usually made with distractors bearing an acoustic relationship to the unrepeated targets. Sixth graders, on the other hand, are more apt to commit errors with distractors that are associatively or semantically related to prior study list items (Bach & Underwood, 1970;Means & Rohwer, 1976). This increase in semantic false recognitions may be attributed to the elaborative processing efforts of older children.…”

mentioning

confidence: 82%

“…The procedure carefully followed that which was used by Means and Rohwer (1976): 1 The recognition test was individually adminstered to each subject. Initially, subjects were informed that they would be seeing slides of various objects and hearing their names.…”

Section: Design and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A false recognition procedure was used to compare the relative dominance of acoustic, visual, and semantic attributes for both learning disabled and non-disabled children at different stages of development. The method used for comparing the development of encoding preferences followed that which was used by Means and Rohwer (1976). Using a false recognition procedure, Means and Rohwer measured the relative strength of visual, acoustic and semantic distractors with first and sixth grade boys and girls.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Development of Encoding Processes in Learning Disabled Children

Lorsbach

Gray

1985

J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current experiment compared the development of encoding preferences in learning disabled children and non-disabled children. Both learning disabled (LD) and non-learning disabled (non-LD) boys from grades 2 and 6 were given a false recognition task. To measure the relative dominance of attributes encoded by the two groups at the two ages, study and test items were manipulated to form visual, acoustic, and semantic distractors. For both second grade and sixth grade LD subjects, visual distractors produced significantly greater numbers of false recognitions than acoustic or semantic distractors. This pattern of encoding preferences was also observed with non-LD second graders. However, sixth grade non-LD subjects displayed a shift in encoding preference and were significantly more distracted by semantic than by acoustic or visual items. The results suggest that LD students do not spontaneously use the effortful semantic processing strategy of elaborative rehearsal.

show abstract

Attribute dominance in memory development.

Cited by 9 publications

References 11 publications

Event‐Related Potential Investigations of Cognitive Development and Aginga

Event‐Related Potential Investigations of Cognitive Development and Aginga

Self‐paced study time as a cue for recall predictions across school age

The Development of Encoding Processes in Learning Disabled Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About