Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26394803›Full record

ArticleDevelopmental psychobiology2016

A dissociation between recognition and reactivation: The renewal effect at 3 months of age.

Kimberly Cuevas, Amy E Learmonth, Carolyn Rovee-Collier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Developmental psychobiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kimberly CuevasDepartment of Psychology, University of Connecticut, 99 East Main St., Waterbury, CT, 06702. kimberly.cuevas@uconn.edu.
Amy E LearmonthDepartment of Psychology, William Paterson University, 300 Pompton Road, Wayne, NJ, 07470.
Carolyn Rovee-CollierDepartment of Psychology, Rutgers University, 152 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854.

Funding

CONDITIONING ANALYSIS OF INFANT MEMORYR01MH032307 · NIMH · RUTGERS THE ST UNIV OF NJ NEW BRUNSWICK · PI ROVEE-COLLIER, CAROLYN K. · 1985 to 2009
$4.1M
CONDITIONING ANALYSIS OF INFANT MEMORYR37MH032307 · NIMH · RUTGERS THE ST UNIV OF NJ NEW BRUNSWICK · PI ROVEE-COLLIER, CAROLYN K. · 1990 to 1999
–
NIMH NIH HHS MH32307-37NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH032307NIMH NIH HHS R37 MH032307
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extinction allows organisms to adapt to an ever-changing environment. Despite its theoretical and applied significance, extinction has never been systematically studied with human infants. Using the operant mobile task, we examined whether 3-month-olds would exhibit evidence of original learning following extinction. In a recognition paradigm, infants exhibited renewal when tested in the acquisition context (ABA renewal) or a neutral context (ABC and AAB renewal) 1 day following extinction (Experiment 1a) and spontaneous recovery 3 days following extinction (Experiment 1b). In Experiments 2a-2b, we used a reminder paradigm to examine whether the extinguished response could be reinstated after the operant response had been forgotten. We failed, however, to find reinstatement of extinguished responding after spontaneous forgetting, regardless of the reminder and test contexts. We attributed this retention failure to competing responses at test. Although extinguished responding is recovered during infancy, this effect is elusive after the response has been forgotten.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentConditioning, OperantExtinction, PsychologicalFemaleHumansInfantMaleRecognition, Psychologycontextextinctionhuman infantslong-term retentionmemoryoperant conditioningrecognitionreinstatementremindingrenewal effectspontaneous recovery

Identifiers

PMID26394803
PMCPMC7015102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.