Preschoolers fast map and retain artifact functions as efficiently as artifact names, but artifact actions are the most easily learned

Adult Fast-Mapping Memory Research Is Based on a Misinterpretation of Developmental-Word-Learning Data

Fast mapping is often used to refer to children’s remarkable ability to learn the meanings of new words with minimal exposure and in ambiguous contexts. It is one thing to claim that children are capable of learning words this way; it is another to claim that this ability relies on a specific fast-mapping neurocognitive mechanism that is critical for early word learning. Yet that claim has recently been made in adult memory research and used as a theoretical justification for research into an adult fast-mapping mechanism. In this review, we explain why the existence of such a mechanism in children is not supported by developmental research and explore the implications for adult fast-mapping data and research.

Why would a special FM process exist in adults, when it does not appear to exist in children?

Cooper Greve, and Henson (this issue)  caution restraint before accepting that a fast mapping (FM) process exists in adults. We welcome this, but would also add that the original rationale for studying FM in adults is not currently supported by developmental research. Despite the claims of several adult FM researchers, there is little evidence from developmental word learning research for a special hippocampus-independent FM process critical for children's word learning.

Effects of context variability on 2-year-olds' fact and word learning

The current study investigated the effects of context variability on 2.5-year-olds' (N = 48) fact and word learning. Children were taught labels or facts for novel objects that were presented on variable or consistent background contexts during training. At test, children were asked to select target items in a context that either matched training contexts or was entirely new. Children learned words at above-chance levels regardless of context variability, and there was no significant difference in learning between children in variable and consistent training conditions. For facts, on the other hand, children demonstrated above-chance target selection only when contexts matched between training and test. In addition, children's immediate target selection was lower in the variable context condition than in the consistent one. However, this difference was not present after a 10-min delay. Results are discussed in terms of why fact learning and word learning may be differentially affected by context variability.