The Neural Underpinnings of Processing Newly Taught Semantic Information: The Role of Retrieval Practice

Abstract

Purpose Recent behavioral studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of implementing retrieval practice into learning tasks for children. Such approaches have revealed that repeated spaced retrieval (RSR) is particularly effective in promoting children's learning of word form and meaning information. This study further examines how retrieval practice enhances learning of word meaning information at the behavioral and neural levels. Method Twenty typically developing preschool children were taught novel words using an RSR learning schedule for some words and an immediate retrieval (IR) learning schedule for other words. In addition to the label, children were taught two arbitrary semantic features for each item. Following the teaching phase, children's learning was tested using recall tests. In addition, during the 1-week follow-up, children were presented with pictures and an auditory sentence that correctly labeled the item but stated correct or incorrect semantic information. Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were time locked to the onset of the words noting the semantic feature. Children provided verbal judgments of whether the semantic feature was correctly paired with the item. Results Children recalled more labels and semantic features for items that had been taught in the RSR learning schedule relative to the IR learning schedule. ERPs also differentiated the learning schedules. Mismatching label–meaning pairings elicited an N400 and late positive component (LPC) for both learning conditions; however, mismatching RSR pairs elicited an N400 with an earlier onset and an LPC with a longer duration, relative to IR mismatching label–meaning pairings. These ERP timing differences indicated that the children were more efficient in processing words that were taught in the RSR schedule relative to the IR learning schedule. Conclusions Spaced retrieval practice promotes learning of both word form and meaning information. The findings lay the necessary groundwork for better understanding of processing newly learned semantic information in preschool children. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.15063060

O uso da prática de lembrar na aprendizagem de crianças: revisão sistemática da literatura

“…As a material, researchers used sets of names of exotic plants and animals and corresponding images, in two control conditions (immediate retrieval versus repeated retrieval), with cued-recall as criterion tests. The authors verify that contextual re-establishment, due to the spaces between retrieval practices, enhances the long-term retention of words for both groups of children (with typical development and with specific language disorder) (Haebig et al, 2021). Coyne et al (2015) studied children and adolescents who survived traumatic brain injuries.…”

“…Most of the studies involved children with typical development, except for three studies, (Haebig et al, 2021;. In the study by , children with specific language disorders benefitted from spaced retrieval practice.…”

“…Another similar study showed that no matter their lexical skills, children with specific language disorders benefitted from the retrieval practice for learning new words . Haebig et al (2021) conducted studies with 36 children aged between 4 and 6 years. Half of the children presented typical development and the other half had specific language disorder.…”

“…Only 5% of studies that were included in this review were conducted in Latin America, according to Table 2. (Sheffield & Hudson, 2006); 2 years and a half (Fritz et al, 2007); 2 years and 10 months (Cornell et al, 1988); 3 years (Kliegl et al, 2018;; 4 years (Haebig et al, 2019;Haebig et al, 2021;; 4 years and 5 months (Carneiro et al, 2018); 5 years (Hotta et al, 2016) 6 years 10 (Dang, Yang, Che et al, 2021;Ma, Li, Duzi et al, 2020;; 6 years and 3 months (Bailey et al, 2012); 6 years and 5 months (Lipowski et al, 2014); 7 years (Bouwmeester & Verkoeijen, 2011;Goossens et al, 2016;Jones et al, 2015;Marsh et al, 2012;Moore et al, 2018) 8 years 13 (Coyne et al, 2015;Lechuga et al, 2006;Ritchie et al, 2013); 8 years and 10 months (Jaeger et al, 2015); 8 years and 11 months ; 9 years (Goossens, Camp, Verkoeijen, Tabbers & Zwaan, 2014;Karpicke et al, 2014;Leahy & Sweller, 2019;Lima & Jaeger, 2020;Moreira, Pinto, Justi & Jaeger, 2019;Rohrer et al, 2010); 9 years and 2 months (Karpicke et al, 2016) 10 years 8…”

“…The materials used to investigate the effects of the retrieval practice on children were numerous. There were stories (Goossens, Camp, Verkoeijen, Tabbers & Zwaan, 2014), illustrated books (Cornell et al, 1988), texts adapted from pedagogical materials (Agarwal et al, 2014;Barenberg & Dutke, 2019;Jaeger et al, 2015;Karpicke et al, 2014;Leahy & Sweller, 2019;Lima & Jaeger, 2020;Marsh et al, 2012;Moreira, Pinto, Justi & Jaeger, 2019;Roediger, Agarwal et al, 2011;Rowley & McCrudden, 2020;Spitizer, 1939), proper names (Fritz et al, 2007), names of animals, plants, along with their respective information and semantic facts (Haebig et al, 2021), names of taxonomic categories represented by pictures (Lipowski et al, 2014), associated images and objects (Kliegl et al, 2018;Ma, Li, Duzi et al, 2020), associated images and pictures with their names and meanings Moore et al, 2018), lists of words (Bouwmeester & Verkoeijen, 2011;Dang, Yang, Che et al, 2021;Haebig et al, 2019;Jones et al, 2015;Karpicke et al, 2016; introduced by one illustration, one definition and one context phrase (Goossens et al, 2016), words and synonyms, . Pairs of associated words were also used (Carneiro et al, 2018;Coyne et al, 2015;Hughes et al, 2018;Lechuga et al, 2006), pairs with concepts and their definitions (Lipko-Speeda et al, 2014), cards containing geographic information (Ritchie et al, 2013), fictitious maps…”