Search

Research with humans and with nonhuman species has suggested a special role of room geometry in spatial memory functioning. In two experiments, participants learned the configuration of a room with four corners, along with the configuration of four objects within the room, while standing in a fixed position at the room's periphery. The configurations were either rectangular (Experiment 1) or irregular (Experiment 2). Room geometry was not recalled better than object layout geometry, and memories for both configurations were orientation dependent. These results suggest that room geometry and object layout geometry are represented similarly in human memory, at least in situations that promote long-term learning of object locations. There were also some differences between corners and objects in orientation dependence, suggesting that the two sources of information are represented in similar but separate spatial reference systems. [corrected]

This research was an investigation of children's performance on a task that requires memory binding. In Experiments 1 and 2, 4-year-olds, 6-year-olds, and adults viewed complex pictures and were tested on memory for isolated parts in the pictures and on the part combinations (combination condition). The results suggested improvement in memory for the combinations between the ages of 4 and 6 years but not in memory for the isolated parts. In Experiments 2 and 3, the authors also examined the developmental relationship between performance in the combination condition and free recall of a naturalistic event, finding preliminary evidence that performance on a memory task that requires binding is positively related to performance in episodic memory., (((c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).)

Contemporary knowledge of infant cognition relies heavily on violation-of-expectation experiments. However, there are two ways to conceptualize what occurs in such studies. Babies may react to anomalous test events because of preexisting world knowledge. Alternatively, they may react because they have learned about events during the familiarization period. One way to distinguish these possibilities is to contrast familiarization with everyday versus anomalous events. In the studies we report here, we used this method to probe the nature of 5-month-olds' expectations about the locations of objects hidden in sand and later revealed. In Experiment 1, infants who initially saw everyday events did react to anomalous ones, as found previously, whereas infants who initially saw anomalous events did not react to everyday events. In Experiment 2, two alternative explanations of this pattern were ruled out. We conclude that by the age of 5 months, infants have expectations regarding the location of objects in continuous space.

Prior data have revealed striking contrasts between 18- and 24-month-old children in place learning, an ability known to depend on the hippocampus (Newcombe, Huttenlocher, Drummey, & Wiley, 1998). The current research examined the development of three other basic abilities of mature spatial competence: the representation of multiple locations, the learning of relations among objects, and the recall of a single location after a substantial filled delay. Results indicated a transition from 18 to 24 months in all three abilities. This evidence supports a general transition in spatial representation that occurs towards the end of infancy. Existing neurobehavioral data suggest that a corresponding change in hippocampal functioning underlies this development.

The purposes of this research were to examine the developmental relation between reality monitoring and episodic memory, to link reality monitoring to autobiographical memory by using extended naturalistic events, and to examine prefrontal functioning as a potential contributor to development in reality monitoring and episodic memory. In Experiment 1, 4-year-olds were worse than 6- or 8-year-olds at reality monitoring after a week delay, despite the fact that they remembered more about real than imagined events and remembered different aspects of each. In Experiments 2 and 3, reality monitoring and episodic memory were evaluated for 4- and 6-year-olds immediately after the events occurred and, in Experiment 3, again after a week delay. Reality monitoring was at higher levels for both age groups, but age differences remained. These data suggest that preschoolers' difficulties with reality monitoring result from a combination of episodic memory deficits and strategic differences. In addition, correlation analyses more directly linked preschoolers' reality monitoring to episodic memory and supported the hypothesis that episodic memory development is related to prefrontal functioning.