Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • prostaglandin receptor br Introduction Episodic memory invol

    2018-10-25


    Introduction Episodic memory involves recollection of the central content of information (e.g., fact memory) and its surrounding contextual details, known as source memory (SM). Source monitoring refers to the cognitive processes involved in making judgments about the origin of information and may serve as an important framework in explaining episodic memory development (Johnson, 2005; Johnson et al., 1993). Unfortunately, very little is known about the factors that contribute to SM formation. We investigated (1) age-related differences in fact and source recall in middle childhood, (2) the contribution of higher order executive functions to variation in fact and source recall, and (3) patterns of prostaglandin receptor electrical activity exhibited during fact and source recall. In the following sections, we discuss what is known about source memory development and its associations with executive function skills and then review related psychophysiological investigations examining the neural correlates of SM.
    Method
    Results Descriptive statistics on the SM, language and EF measures for both 6- and 8-year-old children are presented in Table 1. Independent samples t-tests revealed that 8-year-olds had a higher proportion of correct responses than 6-year-olds on fact recall and fact knowledge. However, 6- and 8-year-olds did not differ on source recall. Children were more likely to commit intraexperimental errors (n=69) than extraexperimental errors (n=3) and this latter variable was excluded from analyses. No differences were found between these two age groups on the percentage of intraexperimental errors and false alarms committed during the SM test. For the executive function tasks, 8-year-olds performed better than 6-year-olds on Forward and Backward Digit Span, but no age difference was found for the Stroop interference score. Eight-year-olds also outperformed 6-year-olds on expressive vocabulary. Pearson correlations were calculated among the SM, EF, and language measures (Table 2). In general, fact recall, fact knowledge, and source recall were all positively correlated with the Forward and Backward Digit Span EF tasks. The Stroop interference score was negatively correlated with source recall performance, indicating that children with lower interference scores tended to perform better on the SM task. In addition, a trend toward significance was seen for false alarm errors being negatively correlated with Forward and Backward Digit Span performance and positively correlated with children\'s Stroop interference scores. As previously mentioned, measures of working memory and inhibitory control tap into a common EF construct. Therefore, due to the conceptual relations among the EF measures, the Stroop Intereference score, Forward Digit highest span, and Backward Digit highest span scores were aggregated into a single EF composite score, a method which has been used in prior research (Picard et al., 2009). The Stroop Interference score was multiplied by −1, so that lower scores on all variables indicate poorer performance. We then converted the raw scores of these variables into standardized z-scores and took the mean of these z-scores to create a composite EF score. To retain as much data as possible, if children were missing data from one or two EF tasks, their composite score was aggregated based on data from the other available tasks. For 70 children the EF composite score represents an aggregrate of all three EF measures. One child failed to pass the learning criterion for the Backward Digit Span task, and thus the EF composite score for somatic cell child represents an aggregate of the remaining two EF measures. Due to experimenter error, one child was not administered the Forward and Backward Digit Span tasks, and thus for this child the EF score is the Stroop interference z-score.
    Discussion The purpose of our study was to examine developmental improvement in the ability to recollect the source-specifying details of a memory episode. We investigated age-related differences in fact and source recall in a sample of 6- and 8-year-old children. In general, our results matched those observed by Drummey and Newcombe (2002). Specifically, 8-year-olds performed better on prostaglandin receptor the measures of fact recall and fact knowledge whereas source recall was comparable between 6- and 8-year-olds. One discrepancy was that children were less likely to experience extraexperimental errors in the present study. This was likely due to the shorter delay imposed. The 1-week delay between encoding and testing phases in Drummey and Newcombe (2002) may have allowed for greater interference and intrusion between multiple sources, thus increasing the occurrence of extraexperimental errors.