Contingency of semantic generalization on episodic specificity varies across development
Open accessAbstract
Semantic memory-general knowledge of ideas and concepts-includes generalization processes that support inference. Episodic memory, on the other hand, preserves the specificity of individual events by binding together unique combinations of elements from an episode and relies on pattern separation to distinguish similar experiences. These two memory systems play complementary roles, supporting different mnemonic goals, but the nature and extent of their interdependence is unclear.1,2 Some models suggest that new information is encoded initially as hippocampus-dependent episodic memory and then, either through repetition or gist extraction, becomes semantic over time.3,4 These models also posit a neocortical route to semantic memory acquisition exists that can bypass the hippocampus.3 Both proposed routes are slow learning mechanisms, yet generalization can occur rapidly. Recent models suggest that fast generalization relies, in part, on the retrieval of individual but related episodes.5,6 Such episodic memory gating mechanisms render fast generalization contingent on the memory specificity of instances, a pattern that has been observed in adults.7,8 None of these models take into account the observation that generalization and episodic specificity have asynchronous developmental profiles, with generalization emerging years before episodic memory.9,10 We ask two questions about generalized and specific memory during early childhood: first, is rapid generalization contingent on remembering specific past memories? And second, does the strength or nature of this contingency differ across development? We found that the interdependence of generalization and episodic memory varies across development: generalization success in adults, but not in children, was contingent on context binding.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In a task probing generalization and episodic specificity from the same experiences, adults’ generalization success was contingent on context binding, whereas children’s was not. This developmental dissociation suggests fast generalization may rely on different routes before and after mature episodic memory.
Key findings
- In a trial-by-trial generalized linear mixed model, significant predictors of generalization were age (β=0.33, z=2.15, p=.032), within-category semantic similarity (β=0.16, z=2.00, p=.046), item conceptual specificity (β=0.27, z=2.14, p=.032), and an age × context binding interaction (β=0.39, z=2.94, p=.003); no other predictors or interactions reached significance (all ps>.35).
- Context binding predicted generalization in adults but not children: the age × context binding interaction indicated adults’ generalization was tied to remembering specific item-context representations, while children’s generalization was untethered to context memory.
- Across ages 3–8, age was associated with better generalization (R²(63)=0.20, p=2.19×10−4), item conceptual specificity (R²(63)=0.22, p=8.70×10−5), and item perceptual specificity (R²(63)=0.12, p=.005), but not context binding (R²(63)=0.03, p=.20).
- Younger children (3–5) were less accurate than older children (6–8) and adults on generalization (t=−5.09 and t=−7.28, both p_holm<.001), while older children and adults did not differ (t=−2.64, p_holm=.24); no age differences in context binding among groups (ps>.86).
Methods
- Children ages 3–8 (N=70) and young adults (N=29) viewed 20 cartoon characters in 80 events, each character paired with four objects from one category in four semantically congruent contexts; four three-alternative forced-choice tasks measured generalization, context binding, item conceptual specificity, and item perceptual specificity.
- Generalization was operationalized as choosing a novel category-consistent object for a character; context binding as choosing the object seen with a character in a particular context; item conceptual/perceptual specificity as choosing the encoded object among same-category or perceptually similar lures.
- Main analysis was a generalized linear mixed-effects model predicting trial-by-trial generalization from age, context binding, item conceptual specificity, item perceptual specificity, semantic similarity (GloVe), and their interactions with age, with participant and category as random effects; ceiling performers (9 adults, 8 older children) were excluded from contingency analyses.
Limitations
- Stated: cross-sectional design prevents charting developmental change or lead-lag between generalization and specificity; age-related categorical knowledge was not separately assessed.
- Stated: the context binding and item conceptual/perceptual specificity tasks were administered in a fixed order, and children received a screening procedure with all four task types whereas adults did not, which may have introduced order effects or uneven strategy deployment.
- Evident from text: the authors acknowledge these procedural asymmetries; no additional limitations are explicitly stated beyond those noted.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 17 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
Generalization success was significantly positively related to age in the generalized linear mixed effects model.
“Generalization success was significantly related to age, β= 0.33, z= 2.15, p= .032”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Generalization success was significantly positively related to item conceptual specificity in the generalized linear mixed effects model.
“item conceptual specificity, β= 0.27, z= 2.14, p= .032”
- Also stated in: § What Determines Generalization? · plain
“Further, accurate item conceptual specificity was associated with greater generalization.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § What Determines Generalization? · plain
- Findingown data
Generalization success was significantly positively related to within-category semantic similarity in the generalized linear mixed effects model.
“semantic similarity, β= 0.16, z= 2.00, p= .046”
- Also stated in: § What Determines Generalization? · plain
“Across all ages, greater degree of within-category semantic relatedness increased the probability of generalization success.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § What Determines Generalization? · plain
- Findingown data
No predictors or interactions other than age, semantic similarity, item conceptual specificity, and age by context binding reached significance in the generalized linear mixed effects model.
“No other predictors or interactions reached significance, all ps > .35”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In children in early and middle childhood, generalization success was not contingent on context binding.
“In children, this link was not observed: generalization success was untethered to their context memory.”
- Also stated in: § What Determines Generalization? · plain
“However, contingency between generalization and context binding was not observed in either early or middle childhood.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § What Determines Generalization? · plain
- Findingown data
There was a significant age by context binding interaction predicting generalization success in the generalized linear mixed effects model.
“an age*context binding interaction, β= 0.39, z= 2.94, p= .003”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In adults, generalization success was contingent on context binding: remembering the specific contexts of objects was associated with generalization for a given character.
“We found that the interdependence of generalization and episodic memory varies across development: generalization success in adults, but not in children, was contingent on context binding.”
- Also stated in: § What Determines Generalization? · plain
“Importantly, in adults, remembering the specific contexts of the objects was associated with generalization for a given character.”
- Also stated in: § What Determines Generalization? · plain
“an age*context binding interaction, β= 0.39, z= 2.94, p= .003.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § What Determines Generalization? · plain
- Findingown data
Younger children aged 3 to 5 were less likely to make accurate generalizations than older children aged 6 to 8 and adults.
“Post-hoc tests showed that younger children were less likely to make accurate generalizations than older children, t= −5.09, pholm<001, and adults, t= −7.28, Pholm<001”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
With increasing age, children aged 3 to 8 years were better at generalization.
“A linear regression of age (in months) on accuracy showed that, with increasing age, children were better at generalization, R2(63)= 0.20, p= 2.19×10−4”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Even in the youngest children, memory specificity at the item level was tied to generalization success, namely conceptual specificity.
“Even in our youngest children, memory specificity at the item level was tied to generalization success, namely conceptual specificity, suggesting a certain kind of contingency between semantic memory acquisition and episodic memory.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Age was not associated with context binding accuracy in children aged 3 to 8 years.
“Interestingly, age was not associated with context binding accuracy, R2(63)= 0.03, p= .20”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Among young adults, age was not related to memory performance.
“Among young adults, age was not related to memory performance (all p’s > .46).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Older children and adults did not differ on generalization.
“older children and adults did not differ on generalization, t= −2.64, pholm= .24.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
With increasing age, children aged 3 to 8 years were better at item conceptual specificity.
“item conceptual specificity, R2(63)= 0.22, p= 8.70×10−5”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
With increasing age, children aged 3 to 8 years were better at item perceptual specificity.
“item perceptual specificity R2(63)=0.12, p=.005”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
There were no age differences in context binding among younger children, older children, and adults.
“Surprisingly, there were no age differences in context binding among the three age groups, ps> .86.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Younger children were less able to remember objects' identity and perceptual details than older children and adults.
“We also found that younger children were less able to remember objects’ identity and the perceptual details than older children and adults.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Accuracy for objects' perceptual details was significantly associated with conceptual specificity.
“We found that accuracy for objects’ perceptual details was significantly associated with conceptual specificity (see Figure S4A).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The age patterns in perceptual memory specificity among children persisted when only examining trials in which object identities were remembered.
“Nonetheless, the age patterns in perceptual memory specificity among children persisted when we only examined trials in which the object identities were remembered (see Figure S4B).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Semantic relatedness varied across different characters in the stimulus set.
“Semantic relatedness varied across different characters (see Figure 3B).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Younger children's accuracy exceeded chance level (0.33) on all four memory tasks.
“Despite performing worse than their older counterparts in three out of four tasks, the younger children’s accuracy exceeded chance level (0.33) on all four tasks, all ps< .002”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
The contingency between episodic memory specificity and generalization varies across development.
“Crucially, contingency between episodic memory specificity and generalization varies across development.”
- Also stated in: § Summary · plain
“We found that the interdependence of generalization and episodic memory varies across development”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Summary · plain
- Interpretationown data
Adults' generalization relied on remembering specific item-context representations.
“Adults’ generalization relied on remembering specific item-context representations, consistent with the notion that rapid generalization relies on retrieving specific instances 7,8, and that there was no generalization-specificity trade off 28,29”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked- cites [7] Banino A, Koster R, Hassabis D & Kumaran D Retrieval-Based Model Accounts for Striking Profile of Episodic Memory and Generalization. Sci. Rep. 6, 1– 15 (2016). 27510579 PMC4980665 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [8] Tompary A, Zhou WX & Davachi L Schematic memories develop quickly, but are not expressed unless necessary. Sci. Rep. 10, 1– 17 (2020). 33046766 PMC7550328 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [28] Gershman SJ, Schapiro AC, Hupbach A & Norman KA Neural context reinstatement predicts memory misattribution. J. Neurosci. 33, 8590– 8595 (2013). 23678104 PMC3686093 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [29] Varga NL, Gaugler T & Talarico JM Are mnemonic failures and benefits two sides of the same coin?: Investigating the real-world consequences of individual differences in memory integration. Mem. Cogn. 47, 496– 510 (2019). PMC6534966 30617747 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
In a mature system, fast generalization can occur on the fly based on a chain-like retrieval process of individual but related episodes.
“In a mature system, fast generalization can occur on the fly based on a chain-like retrieval processes of the individual but related episodes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Adults' ability to rapidly generalize does not rely on abstraction, a process by which memories for specific instances are lost but an emergent average representation supports generalization across episodes.
“These results suggest that adults’ ability to rapidly generalize does not rely on abstraction—a process by which memories for the specific instances are lost, but the emergent average representation supports generalization across episodes 30.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [30] Altmann GTM Abstraction and generalization in statistical learning: Implications for the relationship between semantic types and episodic tokens. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 372, (2017). PMC5124085 27872378 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
There is a certain kind of contingency between semantic memory acquisition and episodic memory.
“Even in our youngest children, memory specificity at the item level was tied to generalization success, namely conceptual specificity, suggesting a certain kind of contingency between semantic memory acquisition and episodic memory.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Preservation of rich contextual memories played a role in generalization for young adults.
“Preservation of rich contextual memories played a role in generalization for young adults, consistent with previous studies 6,7.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [6] Koster R Big-loop recurrence within the hippocampal system supports integration of information across episodes. Neuron 99, 1342– 1354 (2018). 30236285 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [7] Banino A, Koster R, Hassabis D & Kumaran D Retrieval-Based Model Accounts for Striking Profile of Episodic Memory and Generalization. Sci. Rep. 6, 1– 15 (2016). 27510579 PMC4980665 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Without a full constellation of robust episodic memory capacities, younger children may rely on aspects of a specific episode that they do encode and retain, along with support of overall semantic structures that tie together related episodes.
“Without a full constellation of robust episodic memory capacities, younger children may rely on the aspects of a specific episode that they do encode and retain, along with the support of overall semantic structures that tie together related episodes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Generalization may continue to change during middle childhood.
“Although older children and adults did not differ in our study, previous studies reported an increase in associative inference or detection of recurring patterns from age 6 to 14 15. Generalization may continue to change during middle childhood.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [15] Schlichting ML, Guarino KF, Schapiro AC, Turk-Browne NB & Preston AR Hippocampal structure predicts statistical learning and associative inference abilities during development. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 29, 37– 51 (2017). 27575916 PMC5130612 source
Not checked in the free run.
- May combine two claims. 12
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 33
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataFor item conceptual specificity, both older children and adults outperformed younger children, but older children and adults did not differ.
“Similarly, for item conceptual specificity, both older children, t= −5.15, pholm<.001, and adults, t= −3.85, pholm=006, outperformed younger children, but their performances did not differ, t= 1.09, Pholm= 100.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataFor item perceptual specificity, older children and young adults did not differ, and adults outperformed younger children, but the difference between older and younger children was nonsignificant.
“For item perceptual specificity, again older children and young adults did not differ, Pholm= 100, and adults outperformed younger children, t= −3.33, p=.03, but the difference between older and younger children was nonsignificant, p=0.06.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataWithin-category semantic similarity scores are higher than across-category scores for all 20 categories, though the degree varies by category.
“The overall pattern shows that within-category scores are higher than across-category scores for all 20 categories, although to varying degrees for different categories.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The co-occurrence statistics between two words from large bodies of texts reflect their semantic relationship.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThere may be multiple routes to acquire generalized memories, and different routes are available at different points in development.
“Based on these findings, we suggest that there may be multiple routes to acquire what the literature refers to as gist or schemas, or what we call generalized memories. Importantly, different routes are available at different points in development.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningAdults' rapid generalization relies on their ability to remember specifics and then integrate overlapping elements across episodes.
“Instead, it relies on their ability to remember specifics then integrate overlapping elements across episodes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationMemory for individual items develops much earlier than item-context or item-item relational memory.
“These patterns align with previous findings that memory for individual items develops much earlier than item-context or item-item relational memory 12,18.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [12] Riggins T Developmental Trajectories for Item Memory and Binding. 50, 449– 459 (2014). PMC3951329 23855256 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [18] Sluzenski J, Newcombe NS & Kovacs SL Binding, relational memory, and recall of naturalistic events: A developmental perspective. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 32, 89– 100 (2006). 16478343 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenRandomization between subjects was done in regard to the order of trials and the selection of objects without replacement for each task section.
“Randomization between subjects was done in regards to the order of trials and the selection of objects (without replacement) for each of the task sections.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenUnpopular and androgynous characters were used to reduce the probability of children having pre-existing semantic knowledge, including gender stereotypes, about the characters.
“Unpopular and androgynous characters were used to reduce the probability of children having pre-existing semantic knowledge—including gender stereotypes—about the characters.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationPrevious studies have consistently reported age-related improvements in context binding, or relational binding in general, throughout early and middle childhood.
“Previous studies have consistently reported age-related improvements in context binding—or relational binding in general—throughout early and middle childhood 12,17,22,23.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked- cites [12] Riggins T Developmental Trajectories for Item Memory and Binding. 50, 449– 459 (2014). PMC3951329 23855256 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [17] Lloyd ME, Doydum AO & Newcombe NS Memory binding in early childhood: Evidence for a retrieval deficit. Child Dev. 80, 1321– 1328 (2009). 19765002 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [22] Lee JK Changes in anterior and posterior hippocampus differentially predict item-space, item-time, and item-item memory improvement. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 41, 100741 (2020). 31826840 PMC6994624 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [23] Ngo CT, Lin Y, Newcombe NS & Olson IR Building up and wearing down episodic memory: Mnemonic discrimination and relational binding. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 148, 1463– 1479 (2019). 30896199 PMC6715497 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataSix children who did not participate in the main experiment performed the sorting task with 100% congruency with the initial category assignments.
“These children performed the sorting task with 100% congruency with our initial assignments.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataPerformance did not differ by sex.
“Performance did not differ by sex (all p’s > .12)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningParticipants who did not select the target in at least one of the two generalization trials did not proceed to the main experiment.
“Participants who did not select the target in at least one of the two generalization trials did not proceed to the main experiment (n=3: two 3-year-olds and one 4-year-old child).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataPerformance did not relate to verbal skills in any age group.
“or relate to verbal skills in any age groups (all p’s > .22).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationParticipants learned about characters in an interleaved fashion, which is thought to be beneficial for generalization by increasing between-category discriminability.
“In addition, participants learned about characters in an interleaved fashion, which is thought to be beneficial for generalization by increasing between-category discriminability 24,25.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [24] Birnbaum MS, Kornell N, Bjork EL & Bjork RA Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval. Mem. Cogn. 41, 392– 402 (2013). 23138567 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [25] Kornell N & Bjork RA Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the ‘enemy of induction’? Psychol. Sci. 19, 585– 592 (2008). 18578849 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe co-occurrence of two words from large bodies of texts is an index of their semantic relatedness.
“The co-occurrence of two words from large bodies of texts is an index of their semantic relatedness.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [26] Pennington J, Socher R & Manning CD GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Presentation. Empir. Methods Nat. Lang. Process. 1532– 1543 (2014).
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataData from five participants whose average accuracy across all four memory tasks did not exceed chance level (33%) were excluded from analyses.
“Data from five participants (two 4-year-olds, two 5-year-olds, and one 7-year-old) whose average accuracy across all four memory tasks did not exceed chance level (33%) were excluded from analyses.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningTo ensure that ceiling effects did not impact the contingency patterns, participants whose generalization performance or item conceptual specificity performance reached ceiling level (100%) were excluded (9 adults and 8 older children).
“To ensure that ceiling effects did not impact the contingency patterns, we excluded participants whose generalization performance or item conceptual specificity performance reached ceiling level (100%) (9 adults and 8 older children).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenAll objects were fully counterbalanced such that they never appeared twice in the test phase.
“All objects were fully counterbalanced such that they never appeared twice in the test phase.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningIn the presence of perceptually similar exemplars, target selection in the item perceptual specificity task indicates that participants remembered the objects' perceptual attributes with specificity.
“In the presence of perceptually similar exemplars, target selection would indicate that participants remembered the objects’ perceptual attributes with specificity.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenEach task consisted of 10 trials (one trial per character) presented in a randomized order across participants.
“Each task consisted of 10 trials (one trial per character) presented in a randomized order across participants.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenAll three objects in the item conceptual specificity task belonged to the same category assigned to the character.
“All three objects belonged to the same category assigned to the character (e.g., musical instruments for the Luntik trial).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThe additional stimuli were semantically unrelated to those used for the study and test phases of the experiment.
“These additional stimuli were semantically unrelated to those used for the study and test phases of the experiment.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThe procedure was repeated twice but with entirely different sets of categories, characters, contexts, and objects.
“The procedure was repeated twice but with entirely different sets of categories, characters, contexts, and objects.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenParents were specifically instructed to not name objects that appeared on screen, and to refer only to their corresponding letter label.
“Parents were specifically instructed to not name objects that appeared on screen, and to refer only to their corresponding letter label.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe order of the encoding trials was randomized across participants, with the only restriction being that the same character would not appear in more than two consecutive trials.
“The order of the encoding trials was randomized across participants, with the only restriction being that the same character would not appear in more than two consecutive trials”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenParticipants whose average accuracy across the four memory tasks did not exceed chance level (33%) were not included in the subsequent analyses.
“First, we identified participants whose average accuracy across the four memory tasks did not exceed chance level (33%). These participants were not included in the subsequent analyses.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningThe item perceptual specificity trial immediately followed the item conceptual specificity trial for each character.
“The item conceptual specificity and item perceptual specificity tasks were linked, such that the item perceptual specificity trial immediately followed the item conceptual specificity trial for each character.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenAll nine objects in each category were randomly assigned as encoding items (4 objects), generalization target (1 object), generalization lures for other categories (2 objects), or item conceptual specificity lures (2 objects) across participants.
“All nine objects in each category were randomly assigned as encoding items (4 objects), generalization target (1 object), generalization lures for other categories (2 objects), or item conceptual specificity lures (2 objects) across participants.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenIn the item perceptual specificity task, the two lure objects were similar exemplars of the target that differed in color.
“The other two objects were lures—similar exemplars of the target that differed in color.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningIn the presence of conceptually similar lures, target selection in the item conceptual specificity task indicates that participants remembered the objects' identities with high specificity.
“In the presence of conceptually similar lures, target selection would indicate that participants remembered the objects’ identities with high specificity.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningTarget selection in the generalization task indicates that participants successfully made a novel inference based on the related episodes associated with a given character.
“Target selection would indicate that participants successfully made a novel inference based on the related episodes associated with a given character.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe significance level of 0.05 was applied to all analyses, with the exception of Posthoc tests which employed a Holm correction to the significance level.
“The significance level of 0.05 was applied to all analyses, with the exception of Posthoc tests which employed a Holm correction to the significance level.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenParents were specifically instructed to not name objects that appeared in the experiment, and to refer only to their relative position on screen.
“Parents were specifically instructed to not name objects that appeared in the experiment, and to refer only to their relative position on screen.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenAll three objects in the generalization task were novel items that did not appear in the encoding phase.
“All three objects were novel items that did not appear in the encoding phase.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThe order of the two encoding-test blocks was counterbalanced across participants.
“The order of the two encoding-test blocks was counterbalanced across participants.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningTarget selection in the context binding task indicates that participants remembered the specific object-context co-occurrence.
“Target selection would indicate that participants remembered the specific object-context co-occurrence.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThe experiment was divided into two encoding-test blocks with nonoverlapping stimuli between the two blocks.
“The experiment was divided into two encoding-test blocks with nonoverlapping stimuli between the two blocks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenThe context and objects paired with a given character were semantically related.
“Critically, the context and objects paired with a given character were semantically related.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
The three-alternative forced-choice tasks validly measure generalization and episodic specificity (context binding, item conceptual specificity, and item perceptual specificity) in children and adults.
“We operationalized generalization as the ability to make novel inferences about characters based on commonalities among the places and objects seen with them (i.e., the category).”
“We treated episodic specificity as multifaceted: memory for the context in which an event occurred (i.e., context binding) and memory for the specific details of the conceptual and perceptual features of an item (item conceptual specificity and item perceptual specificity) in three-alternative forced-choice tasks (see Figure 1).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The GloVe-derived semantic similarity among items reflects the semantic relatedness perceived by the children in the study.
“We quantified this variation using Global Vectors for Word Representation 26 (GloVe) to estimate the semantic similarity among the items in our stimulus set”
“The co-occurrence of two words from large bodies of texts is an index of their semantic relatedness.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The co-occurrence statistics between two words from large bodies of texts reflect their semantic relationship.
“The premise of this approach is that the co-occurrence statistics between two words from large bodies of texts should reflect their semantic relationship.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In consolidation, memories are transformed from highly specific instances to more generalized representations, losing specificity.
“It is important to keep in mind that, in this consolidation process, memories are transformed from highly specific instances to more generalized representations, losing specificity in the process 91 .”
From From cognitive maps to spatial schemas (2023) · cites this paper as [91]
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(2, 91) = 17.79reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2, 91)= 17.79, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(3, 272) = 54.71reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(3, 272)= 54.71, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(6, 273) = 6.25reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(6, 273)= 6.25, p < .001”
- Consistentz = 2.15reported p = .032 · recomputed p = .032
“z= 2.15, p = .032”
- Consistentz = 2reported p = .046 · recomputed p = .046
“z= 2.00, p = .046”
- Consistentz = 2.14reported p = .032 · recomputed p = .032
“z= 2.14, p = .032”
- Consistentz = 2.94reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003
“z= 2.94, p = .003”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Cites
McClelland, J. L., McNaughton, B. L., & O'Reilly, R. C. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.3.419 · Cited by 5,256 · see citing works
PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy
Peirce, J. W., Gray, J., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M. R., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E. K., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y · Cited by 5,210 · see citing works
Episodic memory: from mind to brain
Tulving, E. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135114 · Cited by 4,950 · see citing works
(2007) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.4135/9781446212967.n15 · Cited by 3,749 · see citing works
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3 · Cited by 3,392 · see citing works
Mapping cortical change across the human life span
Sowell, E. R., Peterson, B. S., Thompson, P. M., Welcome, S. E., Henkenius, A. L., & Toga, A. W. (2003) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1008 · Cited by 2,328 · see citing works
Norman, K. A., & O'Reilly, R. C. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.4.611 · Cited by 1,312 · see citing works
Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test
(2012) · SpringerReference · doi:10.1007/springerreference_183806 · Cited by 1,089 · see citing works
Learning Concepts and Categories: Is Spacing the “Enemy of Induction”?
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x · Cited by 602 · see citing works
Development and Validation of a Model for Estimating Premorbid Verbal Intelligence in the Elderly
Grober, E. H., Sliwinsk, M., & Korey, S. R. (1991) · Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/01688639108405109 · Cited by 562 · see citing works
Winocur, G., Moscovitch, M., & Bontempi, B. (2010) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.04.016 · Cited by 486 · see citing works
Schapiro, A. C., Turk‐Browne, N. B., Botvinick, M., & Norman, K. A. (2016) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0049 · Cited by 481 · see citing works
What Are the Memory Systems of 1994?
(1994) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4545.003.0002 · Cited by 422 · see citing works
Memory integration: neural mechanisms and implications for behavior
Schlichting, M. L., & Preston, A. R. (2014) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.07.005 · Cited by 404 · see citing works
Kumaran, D., & McClelland, J. L. (2012) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0028681 · Cited by 358 · see citing works
Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The roles of discrimination and retrieval
Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0272-7 · Cited by 264 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In addition, participants learned about characters in an interleaved fashion, which is thought to be beneficial for generalization by increasing between-category discriminability.(24,25) Perhaps the interleaving dampened adults’ memories for specific item-context pairs as a cost of promoting generalization.”
BackgroundKaufman Brief Intelligence Test
Hildman, L. K., Friedberg, P. M., & Wright, P. M. (1993) · Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · doi:10.1177/073428299301100115 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Zeithamová, D., & Preston, A. R. (2010) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3250-10.2010 · Cited by 232 · see citing works
Binding, relational memory, and recall of naturalistic events: a developmental perspective
Sluzenski, J., Newcombe, N. S., & Kovacs, S. L. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.1.89 · Cited by 196 · see citing works
Self-citationKoster, R., Chadwick, M. J., Chen, Y., Berron, D., Banino, A., Düzel, E., Hassabis, D., & Kumaran, D. (2018) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2018.08.009 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Schlichting, M. L., Guarino, K. F., Schapiro, A. C., Turk-Browne, N. B., & Preston, A. R. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01028 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Hippocampal Maturation Drives Memory from Generalization to Specificity
Keresztes, A., Ngo, C. T., Lindenberger, U., Werkle‐Bergner, M., & Newcombe, N. S. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.05.004 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Self-citationGómez, R. L., & Edgin, J. O. (2015) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2015.08.009 · Cited by 154 · see citing works
Memory binding in early childhood: evidence for a retrieval deficit
Lloyd, M. E., Doydum, A. O., & Newcombe, N. S. (2009) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01353.x · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Self-citationHippocampal maturity promotes memory distinctiveness in childhood and adolescence
Keresztes, A., Bender, A. R., Bodammer, N., Lindenberger, U., Shing, Y. L., & Werkle‐Bergner, M. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1710654114 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Generalization and the hippocampus: More than one story?
Zeithamová, D., & Bowman, C. R. (2020) · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory · doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2020.107317 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Riggins, T., Geng, F., Botdorf, M., Canada, K. L., Cox, L. R., & Hancock, G. R. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.03.009 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Neural context reinstatement predicts memory misattribution
Gershman, S. J., Schapiro, A. C., Hupbach, A., & Norman, K. A. (2013) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0096-13.2013 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Riggins, T. (2014) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0033622 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
The ontogeny of relational memory and pattern separation
Ngo, C. T., Newcombe, N. S., & Olson, I. R. (2017) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.12556 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Self-citationGoing beyond the facts: Young children extend knowledge by integrating episodes
Bauer, P. J., & Souci, P. S. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.05.012 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Tests of pattern separation and pattern completion in humans—A systematic review
Liu, K. Y., Gould, R. L., Coulson, M., Ward, E. V., & Howard, R. J. (2015) · Hippocampus · doi:10.1002/hipo.22561 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Lee, J. K., Fandakova, Y., Johnson, E. G., Cohen, N. J., Bunge, S. A., & Ghetti, S. (2020) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100741 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Canada, K. L., Ngo, C. T., Newcombe, N. S., Geng, F., & Riggins, T. (2018) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhy211 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Self-citationBuilding up and wearing down episodic memory: mnemonic discrimination and relational binding
Ngo, C. T., Lin, Y., Newcombe, N. S., & Olson, I. R. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000583 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Retrieval-based model accounts for striking profile of episodic memory and generalization
Banino, A., Koster, R., Hassabis, D., & Kumaran, D. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep31330 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Schematic memories develop quickly, but are not expressed unless necessary
Tompary, A., Zhou, W., & Davachi, L. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-73952-x · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Altmann, G. T. M. (2017) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0060 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Selmeczy, D., Fandakova, Y., Grimm, K. J., Bunge, S. A., & Ghetti, S. (2018) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2018.10.003 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Developmental differences in temporal schema acquisition impact reasoning decisions
Pudhiyidath, A., Roome, H. E., Coughlin, C. A., Nguyen, K. V., & Preston, A. R. (2019) · Cognitive Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/02643294.2019.1667316 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Varga, N. L., Stewart, R., & Bauer, P. J. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.11.015 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
L. Varga, N., Gaugler, T., & Talarico, J. (2019) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-018-0887-4 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Gain-Loss Framing Enhances Mnemonic Discrimination in Preschoolers
Ngo, C. T., Newcombe, N. S., & Olson, I. R. (2019) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.13297 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationBauer, P. J., Dugan, J. A., Varga, N. L., & Riggins, T. (2018) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2018.12.009 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Memory in Infancy and Childhood
Radvansky, G. A. (2021) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780429287039-19 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From cognitive maps to spatial schemas
Farzanfar, D., Spiers, H. J., Moscovitch, M., & Rosenbaum, R. S. (2023) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-022-00655-9 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Moscovitch, M., & Gilboa, A. (2022) · Faculty Reviews · doi:10.12703/r/11-33 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ngo, C. T., Benear, S. L., Popal, H., Olson, I. R., & Newcombe, N. S.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Institute for Human Development (DE)
- Temple University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ngo, Chi T.
- Venue
- Current Biology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-06
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2690-2697.e5
- ISSN
- 0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8222141
- OpenAlex
- W3155107636
- Semantic Scholar
- 7d279fcad1fcc3e10a5d781b07d11254d4d9afb8
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 5.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (vor, 385 d)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- Locations
- Current Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Temple University
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
- National Institute of Mental Health
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
- Keywords
- semantic memory, episodic memory, semantic generalization, episodic specificity, memory development, early childhood, context binding, pattern separation, hippocampus, memory retrieval
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Child, Child, Preschool, Generalization, Psychological, Hippocampus, Humans, Mental Recall, Semantics, Memory, Episodic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
