Searching in the sand: Protracted video deficit in U.S. preschoolers' spatial recall using a continuous search space

Young children exhibit a video deficit for spatial recall, learning less from on-screen than in-person demonstrations. Some theoretical accounts emphasize memory constraints (e.g., insufficient retrieval cues, competition between memory representations). Such accounts imply memory representations are graded, yet video deficit studies measuring spatial recall operationalize memory retrieval as dichotomous (success or failure). The current study tested a graded-representation account using a spatial recall task with a continuous search space (i.e., sandbox) rather than discrete locations. With this more sensitive task, a protracted video deficit for spatial recall was found in children 4–5 years old (n = 51). This may be due to weaker memory representations in the screen condition, evidenced by higher variability and greater perseverative bias. In general, perseverative bias decreased with repeated trials. The discussion considers how the results support a graded-representation account, potentially explaining why children might exhibit a video deficit in some tasks but not others.

Research Highlights

• The task used a continuous search space (sandbox), making it more difficult and sensitive than spatial recall tasks used in prior video deficit research.
• Spatial recall among 4- and 5-year-old children was more variable after watching hiding events on screen via live video feed than through a window.
• Children's spatial recall from screens was more susceptible to proactive interference, evidenced by more perseverative bias in an A-not-B design.
• The results demonstrate memory representations blend experiences that accumulate over time and explain why the video deficit may be protracted for more difficult tasks.

     

Gesture Helps,Only If You Need It: Inhibiting Gesture Reduces Tip-of-the-Tongue Resolution for Those With Weak Short-Term Memory

People frequently gesture when a word is on the tip of their tongue (TOT), yet research is mixed as to whether and why gesture aids lexical retrieval. We tested three accounts: the lexical retrieval hypothesis, which predicts that semantically related gestures facilitate successful lexical retrieval; the cognitive load account, which predicts that matching gestures facilitate lexical retrieval only when retrieval is hard, as in the case of a TOT; and the motor movement account, which predicts that any motor movements should support lexical retrieval. In Experiment 1 (a between-subjects study; N = 90), gesture inhibition, but not neck inhibition, affected TOT resolution but not overall lexical retrieval; participants in the gesture-inhibited condition resolved fewer TOTs than participants who were allowed to gesture. When participants could gesture, they produced more representational gestures during resolved than unresolved TOTs, a pattern not observed for meaningless motor movements (e.g., beats). However, the effect of gesture inhibition on TOT resolution was not uniform; some participants resolved many TOTs, while others struggled. In Experiment 2 (a within-subjects study; N = 34), the effect of gesture inhibition was traced to individual differences in verbal, not spatial short-term memory (STM) span; those with weaker verbal STM resolved fewer TOTs when unable to gesture. This relationship between verbal STM and TOT resolution was not observed when participants were allowed to gesture. Taken together, these results fit the cognitive load account; when lexical retrieval is hard, gesture effectively reduces the cognitive load of TOT resolution for those who find the task especially taxing.