Why word learning is not fast

Natalie Munro, Elise Baker, Karla McGregor, Kimberly Docking, Joanne Arciuli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Upon fast mapping, children rarely retain new words even over intervals as short as 5 min. In this study, we asked whether the memory process of encoding or consolidation is the bottleneck to retention. Forty-nine children, mean age 33 months, were exposed to eight 2- or-3-syllable nonce neighbors of words in their existing lexicons. Didactic training consisted of six exposures to each word in the context of its referent, an unfamiliar toy. Productions were elicited four times: immediately following the examiner's model, and at 1-min-, 5- min-, and multiday retention intervals. At the final two intervals, the examiner said the first syllable and provided a beat gesture highlighting target word length in syllables as a cue following any erred production. The children were highly accurate at immediate posttest. Accuracy fell sharply over the 1-min retention interval and again after an additional 5 min. Performance then stabilized such that the 5-min and multiday posttests yielded compara- ble performance. Given this time course, we conclude that it was not the post-encoding process of consolidation but the process of encoding itself that presented the primary bottleneck to retention. Patterns of errors and responses to cueing upon error suggested that word forms were particularly vulnerable to partial decay during the time course of encoding.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberArticle 41
JournalFrontiers in Psychology
Volume3
Issue numberFEB
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 9 2012

Fingerprint

Learning
Play and Playthings
Gestures
Cues
Retention (Psychology)

Keywords

  • Consolidation
  • Encoding
  • Fast mapping
  • Memory
  • Retention
  • Word learning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Munro, N., Baker, E., McGregor, K., Docking, K., & Arciuli, J. (2012). Why word learning is not fast. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(FEB), [Article 41]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00041

Why word learning is not fast. / Munro, Natalie; Baker, Elise; McGregor, Karla; Docking, Kimberly; Arciuli, Joanne.

In: Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 3, No. FEB, Article 41, 09.10.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Munro, N, Baker, E, McGregor, K, Docking, K & Arciuli, J 2012, 'Why word learning is not fast', Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 3, no. FEB, Article 41. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00041
Munro N, Baker E, McGregor K, Docking K, Arciuli J. Why word learning is not fast. Frontiers in Psychology. 2012 Oct 9;3(FEB). Article 41. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00041
Munro, Natalie ; Baker, Elise ; McGregor, Karla ; Docking, Kimberly ; Arciuli, Joanne. / Why word learning is not fast. In: Frontiers in Psychology. 2012 ; Vol. 3, No. FEB.
@article{ae6713f5b7fa465585de113079539f31,
title = "Why word learning is not fast",
abstract = "Upon fast mapping, children rarely retain new words even over intervals as short as 5 min. In this study, we asked whether the memory process of encoding or consolidation is the bottleneck to retention. Forty-nine children, mean age 33 months, were exposed to eight 2- or-3-syllable nonce neighbors of words in their existing lexicons. Didactic training consisted of six exposures to each word in the context of its referent, an unfamiliar toy. Productions were elicited four times: immediately following the examiner's model, and at 1-min-, 5- min-, and multiday retention intervals. At the final two intervals, the examiner said the first syllable and provided a beat gesture highlighting target word length in syllables as a cue following any erred production. The children were highly accurate at immediate posttest. Accuracy fell sharply over the 1-min retention interval and again after an additional 5 min. Performance then stabilized such that the 5-min and multiday posttests yielded compara- ble performance. Given this time course, we conclude that it was not the post-encoding process of consolidation but the process of encoding itself that presented the primary bottleneck to retention. Patterns of errors and responses to cueing upon error suggested that word forms were particularly vulnerable to partial decay during the time course of encoding.",
keywords = "Consolidation, Encoding, Fast mapping, Memory, Retention, Word learning",
author = "Natalie Munro and Elise Baker and Karla McGregor and Kimberly Docking and Joanne Arciuli",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
day = "9",
doi = "10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00041",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
journal = "Frontiers in Psychology",
issn = "1664-1078",
publisher = "Frontiers Research Foundation",
number = "FEB",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why word learning is not fast

AU - Munro, Natalie

AU - Baker, Elise

AU - McGregor, Karla

AU - Docking, Kimberly

AU - Arciuli, Joanne

PY - 2012/10/9

Y1 - 2012/10/9

N2 - Upon fast mapping, children rarely retain new words even over intervals as short as 5 min. In this study, we asked whether the memory process of encoding or consolidation is the bottleneck to retention. Forty-nine children, mean age 33 months, were exposed to eight 2- or-3-syllable nonce neighbors of words in their existing lexicons. Didactic training consisted of six exposures to each word in the context of its referent, an unfamiliar toy. Productions were elicited four times: immediately following the examiner's model, and at 1-min-, 5- min-, and multiday retention intervals. At the final two intervals, the examiner said the first syllable and provided a beat gesture highlighting target word length in syllables as a cue following any erred production. The children were highly accurate at immediate posttest. Accuracy fell sharply over the 1-min retention interval and again after an additional 5 min. Performance then stabilized such that the 5-min and multiday posttests yielded compara- ble performance. Given this time course, we conclude that it was not the post-encoding process of consolidation but the process of encoding itself that presented the primary bottleneck to retention. Patterns of errors and responses to cueing upon error suggested that word forms were particularly vulnerable to partial decay during the time course of encoding.

AB - Upon fast mapping, children rarely retain new words even over intervals as short as 5 min. In this study, we asked whether the memory process of encoding or consolidation is the bottleneck to retention. Forty-nine children, mean age 33 months, were exposed to eight 2- or-3-syllable nonce neighbors of words in their existing lexicons. Didactic training consisted of six exposures to each word in the context of its referent, an unfamiliar toy. Productions were elicited four times: immediately following the examiner's model, and at 1-min-, 5- min-, and multiday retention intervals. At the final two intervals, the examiner said the first syllable and provided a beat gesture highlighting target word length in syllables as a cue following any erred production. The children were highly accurate at immediate posttest. Accuracy fell sharply over the 1-min retention interval and again after an additional 5 min. Performance then stabilized such that the 5-min and multiday posttests yielded compara- ble performance. Given this time course, we conclude that it was not the post-encoding process of consolidation but the process of encoding itself that presented the primary bottleneck to retention. Patterns of errors and responses to cueing upon error suggested that word forms were particularly vulnerable to partial decay during the time course of encoding.

KW - Consolidation

KW - Encoding

KW - Fast mapping

KW - Memory

KW - Retention

KW - Word learning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867049140&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867049140&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00041

DO - 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00041

M3 - Article

VL - 3

JO - Frontiers in Psychology

JF - Frontiers in Psychology

SN - 1664-1078

IS - FEB

M1 - Article 41

ER -