The study of infant memory has flourished in the past decade for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the tremendous growth of interest in normal and pathological adult memory that began in the late fifties. Despite its common lineage to other areas of memory research, however, infant memory has perhaps been the least integrated into the mainstream. In reading the literature, one gets a sense of discontinuity between the study of infant memory and memory at all other stages of development from childhood to old age ...
Read More
The study of infant memory has flourished in the past decade for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the tremendous growth of interest in normal and pathological adult memory that began in the late fifties. Despite its common lineage to other areas of memory research, however, infant memory has perhaps been the least integrated into the mainstream. In reading the literature, one gets a sense of discontinuity between the study of infant memory and memory at all other stages of development from childhood to old age. The reasons for this are not hard to find. The techniques used to study memory in infants are usually very different from those typically used even in children. These techniques often limit the kind of inferences one can draw about the nature of the memory systems under investigation. Even when terms, concepts, and theories from the adult literature are applied to infants, they often bear only a loose relationship to their original usage. For example, an infant who stares longer at a new pattern than an old one is said to "recognize" the old one and to have a memory system that shares many characteristics with a memory system that makes recognition possible in adults. Simi- larly, an infant who emits a previously learned response, such as a leg kick, to an old stimulus is said to "recall" that response and to be engaged in processes similar to those of adults who are recalling past events.
Read Less
