Intraobject And Extraobject Memory Binding Across Early Development Part 1

Abstract

The ability to bind, or link, different aspects of an experience in memory undergoes protracted development across childhood. Most studies of memory binding development have assessed extraobject binding between an object and some external element such as another object, whereas little work has examined the development of intraobject binding, such as between shape and color features within the same object. 

Memory experience is the process of sensing and storing information through the senses, while memory is the ability to retrieve and use information through recall and recall by storing information in the brain. These two aspects are closely related, a healthy memory experience provides us with a wealth of information, and a strong memory helps us process this information easily.

Memory experience and memory both play an important role in our daily lives. Excellent memory experience can greatly enhance our memory, making it easier for us to recall what we have learned before. For example, when we learn new information, we can absorb it better if we can connect it to our own experiences and feelings. This connection can be achieved in a variety of ways, including sensory stimulation, emotional experience, and social interaction.

Meanwhile, for those who wish to improve their memory, they can also enhance their memory by creating richer experiences. It is recommended to provide multi-sensory experiences to stimulate the brain, such as hearing, vision, smell, taste, etc. We can try to learn and experience in different ways, such as telling stories, playing memory games, writing diaries, practicing empathy, etc.

In addition, physical fitness and healthy living habits are also very important for memory. Maintaining a healthy diet, proper exercise and good sleep can effectively enhance our brain health and memory. In addition, a positive attitude, cultivating interests, and social interaction can also help enhance our brain function and memory levels.

In short, memory experience and memory are closely related, and they interact to promote our brain health and improve our cognitive functions. Through positive actions and living habits, we can enhance memory experience and memory, improve our cognitive level and quality of life. It can be seen that we need to improve memory, and Cistanche deserticola can significantly improve memory because Cistanche deserticola is a traditional Chinese medicinal material that has many unique effects, one of which is to improve memory. The efficacy of minced meat comes from the various active ingredients it contains, including acid, polysaccharides, flavonoids, etc. These ingredients can promote brain health in various ways.

Click Know Short-term Memory how to improve

In this work, we investigate the development of intra- and extraobject memory binding in five-year-olds, eight-year-olds, and young adults with a memory interference paradigm. Between two experiments, we manipulate whether stimuli are presented as coherent objects (Experiment 1: n5-year-olds = 32, 19 males, 13 females; n8-year-olds = 30, 15 males, 15 females; adults = 30, 15 males, 15 females), requiring intrasubject binding between shape and color features, or as spatially separated features (Experiment 2: n5-year-olds = 24, 16 males, 8 females; n8-year-olds = 41, 19 males, 22 females; adults = 31, 13 males, 18 females), requiring extra object binding. 

To estimate the contributions of different binding structures to performance, we present a novel computational model that mathematically instantiates the memory binding, forgetting, and retrieval processes we hypothesize to underlie performance on the task. The results provide evidence of substantial developmental improvements in both intraobject and extraobject binding of shape and color features between 5 and 8 years of age, as well as stronger intraobject compared with extraobject binding of features in all age groups. These findings provide key insights into memory binding across early development.'

Keywords

Computational model; memory binding; memory development; memory interference the ability to bind, or link, different elements of an experience (Brockmole & Logie, 2013; Lee et al., 2016; Lorsbach & Reimer, 2005; Raj & Bell, 2010; Yim et al., 2013). Binding may occur between features within an object, such as its shape and color, or between an object and a separate element, such as its spatial location or another object. 

We refer to these processes as intraobject and extraobject binding, respectively. In addition to these relatively simple forms of binding, complex or configural binding between more than two elements is also possible, such as between two objects and the context in which they are presented (Humphreys et al., 1989; Sutherland & Rudy, 1989; Yonelinas, 2013). Complex binding is believed to separate highly overlapping memories, thus preventing or attenuating mutual interference among these memories (Darby & Sloutsky, 2015; McClelland et al., 1995; Shanks et al., 1998).

In the current work, we present two experiments, along with a novel computational model, investigating the development of intrasubject, extra object, and complex binding in five-year-olds, eight-year-olds, and adults with a variant of a memory interference paradigm (Darby & Sloutsky, 2015). We begin by discussing these forms of binding across development.

Intraobject and Extraobject and Memory Binding Across Development

Prior work with adults has suggested that intraobject and extraobject memory binding may differ in their attentional demands and underlying neural substrates. Some work has investigated the attentional resources required for intraobject and extraobject binding by manipulating whether features such as shape and color are presented within the same object or are perceptually separated in some way. 

In one study (van Geldorp et al., 2015), adults were presented with a visual working memory task and were asked to remember pairings of shapes and colors that were either part of the same object or were spatially separated as transparent shapes alongside color blobs. Adults were less accurate at remembering shape-color associations when features were separated than when they were presented in the same object (for similar findings, see Asch et al., 1960; Walker & Cuthbert, 1998), suggesting that extra object binding is more difficult than intrasubject binding. 

The authors also manipulated attentional load and found that a concurrent task affected memory performance more when the shapes and colors were spatially separated, suggesting that extra object binding is more attentioningly demanding. Other studies adopting similar stimulus manipulations (Ecker et al., 2007, Ecker et al., 2013) have found evidence that intraobject binding, but not extraobject binding, may be automatic in both working memory and long-term memory (but see Hanna & Remington, 1996; Treisman & Gelade, 1980; Wheeler & Treisman, 2002; for evidence that some attention may be necessary for intraobject binding to occur).

In addition, intra- and extraobject binding may be supported by dissociable neural mechanisms. A great deal of work has suggested that extraobject binding relies on the hippocampus (Davachi, 2006; Giovanello et al., 2004; Hannula & Ranganath, 2008; Lee et al., 2020), whereas intraobject binding may begin in early perceptual areas and involve the perirhinal cortex (Staresina & Davachi, 2008; Zimmer & Ecker, 2010). These differences in attentional demands and neural pathways suggest the possibility that intraobject and extraobject binding may have dissociable properties in early development.

Prior work on memory development has focused primarily on extra object binding. For example, some studies have demonstrated that the ability to bind an object to a scene improves between 4 and 6 years of age (Lloyd et al., 2009; Sluzenski et al., 2006). 

Other work has found that binding an object to external elements such as the time the object was presented, its spatial location, or another object does not reach adult-like performance until between 9.5 and 11 years of age (Lee et al., 2016) and that developmental changes in these forms of extra object binding are related to longitudinal structural changes in the hippocampus (Lee et al., 2020).

By contrast, we are unaware of any studies directly investigating intraobject binding or how it compares to extraobject binding in early development. Although little work has examined these issues, some studies have suggested that memory-binding processes may be affected by instructions or strategies that encourage participants to bind features as part of the same item, a process referred to as unitization. 

One way that unitization can occur is through preexisting semantic associations. For example, associating words that are commonly presented as a compound (e.g., PIN-WHEEL) are more easily associated than unrelated words (e.g., PIN-CLOUD; Giovanello et al., 2006). It has also been suggested that unitization can occur through explicit strategies. For example, participants might be shown a grayscale image or line drawing of an object surrounded by a colored frame and be asked to imagine the object in that color (Staresina & Davachi, 2010). 

Previous studies have found that training children to use unitization strategies can improve their memory performance. For example, Robey and Riggins (2018) trained 6- and 8-year-olds to imagine a story explaining why objects (depicted as line drawings) would be the color of a surrounding border and found that this strategy improved memory in both age groups relative to a strategy that did not encourage unitization. 

Given that memory may be improved by strategically treating different elements as part of the same item, and that intraobject binding may be less difficult and attention-demanding than extraobject binding, as discussed above, a reasonable hypothesis is that children will show evidence of stronger intraobject compared with extraobject memory binding. Furthermore, it is possible that intraobject binding may develop earlier and may show relatively little change during childhood.

Memory Binding Complexity

In addition to the distinction between intraobject and extraobject content, memory binding structures can differ in complexity. Whereas binding between two elements, such as between a shape and color or an object and its background, is relatively simple, it is possible to form more complex binding structures, such as between the shape, color, and size of an object, or between two objects along with the context in which they appear together. To form complex binding structures, the representations of multiple entities should be combined into a configurable, or conjunctive, representation (O’Reilly & Rudy, 2001; Sutherland & Rudy, 1989). For example, two objects could be jointly associated with context, such as another object or the space where the two objects appeared together. As we discuss below, these more complex binding structures may help protect information from interference from other, overlapping memories (see Darby & Sloutsky, 2015, for evidence and related arguments).

Prior work has suggested that complex memory binding may develop relatively slowly. One study (Yim et al., 2013) used a cued recall design to measure memory binding in 4-year-olds, 7-year-olds, and adults, as well as a multinomial processing tree (MPT) model to estimate to what extent participants in each age group formed different binding structures. Specifically, the model estimated the contributions of item-experiment, item-item, item-context, and complex item-item-context binding structures to memory performance. 

The results suggested that the simpler binding structures, such as between two items, reach maturity by 7 years of age, whereas the item-context and complex item-item-context binding structures continue to increase after 7 years of age. However, because this work made use of a cued recall paradigm, it remains unclear how complex binding supporting recognition memory develops (see Yim et al., 2018 for evidence of complex binding in recognition memory in adults). In addition, this work considered the development of only extraobject binding, without considering the development of intraobject binding.

For more information:1+50477648nn@gmail.com