The relationship between theory of mind and episodic memory: Evidence for the development of autonoetic consciousness

Naito, Mika

doi:10.1016/s0022-0965(03)00075-4

Cited by 107 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As mentioned above, no evidence has emerged of to date for a linkage between episodic memory development and performance on classical metarepresentation tasks like the unexpected transfer task for false belief understanding (Naito, 2003;.…”

Section: Second-order Metarepresentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When direct (versus indirect) exposure to test materials is the measure of episodic memory similar results are found (Perner, Kloo & Gornik, 2007). However, turning to ability (3) --metarepresentation --no evidence has emerged to date of a relation between first-order theory of mind as assessed by tasks such as unexpected transfer (Wimmer & Perner, 1983) and episodic recollection (Naito, 2003;Perner, Kloo & Stöttinger, 2007). The age of the children who are able to both perform well on the episodic tasks and pass the correlative cognitive tasks is 4 years or over.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Children’s Binding of What-Where-When-Whoin Episodic Memory: Identifying Oneself in the Past

Burns

Russell

2015

Journal of Cognition and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is usually accepted that the binding of What, Where, and When is a central component of young children's and animals' non-conceptual episodic abilities. We argue that additionally binding self-in-past (What-Where-When-Who) adds a crucial conceptual requirement, and ask when this becomes possible and what are its cognitive correlates. In the central task children between 3.5 and 6.5 years of age watched a light display on day-1, with two lights coming on simultaneously or in one of two orders. This was filmed from one of three positions: camera behind child, above child, and facing child. On day-2 children watched three videos from the original angle, each of which represented one of the three light configurations, and with the child in the video occluded. Participants had to decide which occluded child was them and justify their choice by reference to the lights. Above-chance performance was evident after 4.5-years. In addition, all children received the following tasks: spatial perspective-taking, seeing-leads-to-knowing, Modus Tollens reasoning, and second-order theory of mind. With age and verbal ability partialled out, only second-order theory of mind correlated significantly with performance on the central task.

show abstract

Section: Second-order Metarepresentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 91%

Children’s Binding of What-Where-When-Whoin Episodic Memory: Identifying Oneself in the Past

Burns

Russell

2015

Journal of Cognition and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, Melinder et al (2006) showed that three-year-old children's performances were significantly worse than older children when children were presented with videos and then given source questions. According to Naito (2003), four-year-olds failed to judge the source of new knowledge after an experimenter told them about the knowledge.…”

Section: Source-monitoring Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, included contextual information may vary between studies. In Naito's (2003) study, children had to remember when they acquired new knowledge. On the other hand, in the present study, children were given questions about who acted on the objects.…”

Section: Source-monitoring Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Does Executive Function Contribute to Source Monitoring in Young Children?

Kanakogi

Moriguchi

et al. 2012

PSYCHOLOGIA -An International Journal of Psychological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(e.g. Naito, 2003;O'Neill, Astington & Flavell, 1992;O'Neill & Chong, 2001;Pillow, 1993). For example, 3-to 4-year olds make incorrect decisions about whether to look at or feel an object to find out its colour (O'Neill, Astington & Flavell, 1992;Pillow, 1993), and they are poor at re-enacting what they just did to find out an object's smell or feel (O'Neill & Chong, 2001).…”

Section: What Children Know About the Source Of Their Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

What children know about the source of their knowledge without reporting it as the source

Haigh

Robinson

2009

European Journal of Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that, amongst 3- to 5- year-olds, failure to report the source of knowledge recently acquired in answer to “How do you know…?” is due to a specific failure to make a causal inference, in line with source monitoring theory but not fuzzy trace theory. In three Experiments, children (N = 37; 30; 59) identified a hidden toy by seeing, feeling, or by being told, having had two modes of access on each trial, one informative (e.g. seeing a toy identified by colour) and the other uninformative (e.g. being told the toy’s colour by the Experimenter who had only felt it). Children who answered the know question wrongly nevertheless reported accurately who saw and who felt the toy, and what the well-informed player had said. They also realised when\ud the Experimenter’s uninformative access implied their own knowledge was unreliable, suggesting precocious working understanding of knowledge sources

show abstract

The relationship between theory of mind and episodic memory: Evidence for the development of autonoetic consciousness

Cited by 107 publications

References 38 publications

Children’s Binding of What-Where-When-Whoin Episodic Memory: Identifying Oneself in the Past

Children’s Binding of What-Where-When-Whoin Episodic Memory: Identifying Oneself in the Past

How Does Executive Function Contribute to Source Monitoring in Young Children?

What children know about the source of their knowledge without reporting it as the source

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About