title: Memory constraints on infants' cross-situational statistical learning.
abstract: Infants are able to map linguistic labels to referents in the world by tracking co-occurrence probabilities across learning events, a behavior often termed cross-situational statistical learning. This study builds upon existing research by examining infants' developing ability to aggregate and retrieve word-referent pairings over time. 16- and 20-month-old infants (N=32) were presented with a cross-situational statistical learning task in which half of the object-label pairings were presented in immediate succession (massed) and half were distributed across time (interleaved). Results revealed striking developmental differences in word mapping performance; infants in both age groups were able to learn pairings presented in immediate succession, but only 20-month-old infants were able to correctly infer pairings distributed over time. This work reveals significant constraints on infants' ability to aggregate and retrieve object-label pairings across time and challenges theories of cross-situational statistical learning that rest on retrieval processes as successful and automatic.
authors.affiliation: Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, United States. hvlach@wisc.edu
authors.forename: Haley A
authors.initials: HA
authors.lastname: Vlach
authors.forename: Scott P
authors.initials: SP
authors.lastname: Johnson
mesh_terms: D005133:Eye Movements; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D007804:Language Development; D007858:Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D008297:Male; D008433:Mathematics; D008568:Memory / Q000502:physiology*; D011578:Psycholinguistics; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology; D014825:Vocabulary
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 Jan;38(1):246-54
references.pmid: 21895392
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2011 Mar;14(2):165-80
references.pmid: 22213894
references.citation: Cognition. 2011 Oct;121(1):127-32
references.pmid: 21745660
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2006 May;132(3):354-80
references.pmid: 16719566
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1558-68
references.pmid: 17692305
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Apr;19(2):317-24
references.pmid: 22215466
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2010 Oct;107(2):118-36
references.pmid: 20627258
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2012 Jan;119(1):21-39
references.pmid: 22229490
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2009 Nov;45(6):1611-7
references.pmid: 19899918
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1969 Jan;76(1):82-96
references.pmid: 5353380
references.citation: Lang Learn Dev. 2013 Jan;9(1):
references.pmid: 24403867
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1979 Mar;7(2):95-112
references.pmid: 459836
references.citation: Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1994;59(5):1-173; discussion 174-85
references.pmid: 7845413
references.citation: Child Dev. 2000 May-Jun;71(3):635-48
references.pmid: 10953930
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2013 Mar;16(2):149-158
references.pmid: 23432826
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2007 Apr;114(2):245-72
references.pmid: 17500627
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2012 Apr;36(3):545-59
references.pmid: 22257004
references.citation: Cognition. 1996 Oct-Nov;61(1-2):39-91
references.pmid: 8990968
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2009 May;20(5):578-85
references.pmid: 19389131
references.citation: Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1989;54(3-4):1-132
references.pmid: 2608077