Fast mapping rapidly integrates information into existing memory networks

Abstract

Successful learning involves integrating new material into existing memory networks. A learning procedure known as fast mapping (FM), thought to simulate the word-learning environment of children, has recently been linked to distinct neuroanatomical substrates in adults. This idea has suggested the (never-before tested) hypothesis that FM may promote rapid incorporation into cortical memory networks. We test this hypothesis here in 2 experiments. In our 1st experiment, we introduced 50 participants to 16 unfamiliar animals and names through FM or explicit encoding (EE) and tested participants on the training day, and again after sleep. Learning through EE produced strong declarative memories, without immediate lexical competition, as expected from slow-consolidation models. Learning through FM, however, led to almost immediate lexical competition, which continued to the next day. Additionally, the learned words began to prime related concepts on the day following FM (but not EE) training. In a 2nd experiment, we replicated the lexical integration results and determined that presenting an already-known item during learning was crucial for rapid integration through FM. The findings presented here indicate that learned items can be integrated into cortical memory networks at an accelerated rate through fast mapping. The retrieval of a related known concept, in order to infer the target of the FM question, is critical for this effect.

Figure 1

Example training trials for Experiment 1. A fast mapping (top) and explicit encoding (bottom) presentation of ‘torato’ (actually a giraffe weevil; Trachelophorus giraffa). Image of giraffe weevil shown with permission from the copyright holder (Alex Hyde; www.alexhydephotography.com).

Figure 2

Example training trial in the Incidental Encoding condition. Image shown with permission from the copyright holder (Alex Hyde; www.alexhydephotography.com).

Figure 3

Declarative memory and lexical integration results for Day 1 of Experiment 1. In the declarative recognition memory test (left), participants were presented with a learned word and three learned animals (one correct and two foils). The dashed line reflects chance (33%). The lexical integration test (right) measured lexical competition, by subtracting response times to control words from response times to words that lexically neighbor the learned words. A positive value therefore reflects slowed responses due to lexical competition. Error bars show the standard error of the mean. EE = Explicit Encoding; FM = Fast Mapping. Asterisks indicates statistical significance at p < 0.05 compared to baseline or between groups.

Figure 4

Declarative memory and lexical integration results for Experiment 2. In the declarative recognition memory test (left), participants were presented with a learned word and three learned animals (one correct and two foils). The dashed line reflects chance (33%). The lexical integration test (right) measured lexical competition, by subtracting response times to control words from response times to words that lexically neighbor the learned words. A positive value therefore reflects slowed responses due to lexical competition. Error bars show the standard error of the mean. EE = Explicit Encoding; FM = Fast Mapping; IE = Incidental Encoding. Asterisks indicates statistical significance at p < 0.05 compared to baseline or between groups.