The effect of age on children's learning of problems that require a configural association solution

Abstract

Elemental associations permit subjects to solve problems when the significance of the relevant stimulus elements are consistent from trial to trial but do not allow subjects to solve problems that require them to construct and use representations of stimulus conjunctions or configurations to guide their behavior. Recent research with brain-damaged and developing animals has led several theorists to propose that elemental and configural associations depend on different neural systems. Some evidence suggests that changes in children's learning that occur when they are about 4.5 years old may be partially due to developmental differences in access to the elemental and configural association systems. Two experiments are reported that support this hypothesis. Children at least 4.5 years old were able to solve the transverse patterning problem and a conditional discrimination, two problems that require configural association solutions. Younger children did not solve these problems but were able to solve problems constructed from the same stimulus materials that permitted an elemental association solution. These results suggest that children may not gain access to the configural association system until they are about 4.5 years old and support the hypothesis that the configural association system depends on different, later developing neural structures than does the elemental association system.

The aging hippocampus: A multi-level analysis in the rat

“…Further, Astur and Sutherland (1998b) suggest that participants seem to adopt a configural strategy when presented with ambiguous stimulus pairs, even though an elemental strategy would suffice. Also, Rudy et al (1993) reported that children at least 4.5 years old were able to solve transverse patterning and conditional discriminations, two problems that require configural association solutions (i.e., are hippocampus-dependent). In addition, they reported that younger children did not solve these problems, but were able to solve problems that permitted an elemental solution even though the problems were constructed from the same stimulus materials.…”

Spatial relational memory in 9-month-old macaque monkeys

“…First, findings that performance in tasks known to be hippocampus dependent in adults improves gradually throughout postnatal development (Harlow 1959;Rudy et al 1993;Overman et al 1996;Hayne et al 2000;Malkova et al 2000;Overman and Bachevalier 2001) have been viewed as evidence that declarative memory exhibits a protracted development that parallels the postnatal maturation of brain structures subserving this type of memory in adult individuals (Nadel and Zola-Morgan 1984;Alvarado and Bachevalier 2000). This interpretation neglects the fact that differences exist in motivation and/or physical abilities at various ages, as well as the fact that other brain areas, such as the frontal cortex, exhibit significant postnatal maturation (Rosenberg and Lewis 1995;Luciana and Nelson 1998;Lambe et al 2000).…”

Postnatal Development of the Primate Hippocampal Formation

“…There has been no study, however, attempting to establish a direct link between the emergence of autobiographical memories in infants and the maturation of specific brain systems [Nelson, 1998]. Other behavioral studies of declarative memory in monkeys and humans have suggested a protracted functional maturation of the primate hippocampal formation [Harlow, 1959;Hayne et al, 2000;Malkova et al, 2000;Overman and Bachevalier, 2001;Overman et al, 1996;Rudy et al, 1993], but no specific anatomical evidence exists to substantiate this hypothesis [Bauer, 2006]. Clearly, elucidating the postnatal structural development of the primate hippocampal formation would allow a greater understanding of the emergence of declarative memory processes and provide critical insight into the concept of infantile amnesia, the organization of memory and the function of the medial temporal lobe structures across the life span.…”