Reinstatement of 2-year-olds' event memory using photographs

Abstract

This experiment examined 24- and 30-month-olds' understanding of photographs as reminders using a deferred imitation paradigm. The 24- and 30-month-olds visited a laboratory playroom and observed an experimenter demonstrating novel activities. Upon returning after a retention interval, half of the children viewed photographs depicting the activities they had viewed during their first visits as reminders of the event, as well as photographs of activities they had never seen. Children in both the reminder and the no-reminder groups were then asked to complete the originally modelled activities as a test of recall. Results indicate that although 30-month-olds recalled more activities than did 24-month-olds, children in the reminder condition at both ages recalled more activities than children in the no-reminder control condition. Results are discussed in terms of the development of representational understanding and long-term recall in young children.

Transfer of learning between 2D and 3D sources during infancy: Informing theory and practice

“…They performed significantly more target actions than controls who did not see the video reminder (Hudson & Sheffield, 1999). Photograph reminders, however, were only effective for 30-month-olds (Deocampo & Hudson, 2003). There were, however, limitations on infants’ performance.…”

Pre-event discussion and recall of a novel event: How are children best prepared?

“…In the current research, therefore, we investigated the relative impact on children's recall of preparation conveyed verbally and also when supplemented with photographs. We selected photographs because they provide maximal feature overlap with aspects of the event while also conveying spatial and descriptive information that is not available in even a detailed narration (e.g., Deocampo & Hudson, 2003;Salmon, 2001). Given the research outlined here, these factors may maximize the likelihood that encoding of the preparation will be strengthened and the information will be integrated with the event (Small et al, 1993;Sutherland et al, 2003).…”

But I thought it was Mickey Mouse: The effects of new postevent information on 18-month-olds’ memory

“…For example, partial information that does not contain functional information will not reinstate young infantsÕ memory (Greco et al, 1990;Hayne & Rovee-Collier, 1995). Older childrenÕs memories, however, are reinstated by coming in contact with photographs that represent their past experience (Deocampo & Hudson, 2003). Thus, over a relatively short time, changes occur in childrenÕs ability to process postevent information.…”

“…With age, children become more flexible in their ability to use both partial and nonmatching information to reinstate their memory (Deocampo & Hudson, 2003;Herbert & Hayne, 2000;Sheffield & Hudson, 1994). Where might this improvement come from?…”

“…If, for example, a reminder includes object information but does not include action information about an activity, 3-month-olds are not reminded of their past training (Greco, Hayne, & Rovee-Collier, 1990;Hayne & Rovee-Collier, 1995). Yet, at least by the age of 24 months, it is possible to remind children of a past activity by showing them a photograph of the activity (Deocampo & Hudson, 2003). In this deferred-imitation study 24-month-old children observed an experimenter demonstrating several activities during an initial session, were later reminded of the activities by looking at photographs, and were tested on their ability to produce target actions.…”