Talk:Childhood amnesia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 27 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taybledsoe (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Gabutler, Phrenic490, Amonroyr.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 February 2020 and 2 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ask.krier. Peer reviewers: Ecehanyurukoglu, Elif Tunaboylu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Brain Injury and Concussion Not Mentioned

I searched this article for the phrases "head injury," "concussion," and "brain injury," as I wished to find some scholarly information about the relationship between such injuries and the onset of continuous memory. There is no mention of these topics, which I feel is a glaring omission, as infantile and childhood concussions are common, and also quite dangerous.

As a psychologist, I have often found that those clients with an absence of early memory also frequently have a history of early concussions. Of course, they do not remember those concussions, but history obtained from family members can generally provide this information.

There is enormous variance in the recollection of early memories, but as this article reports, most people have a continuous memory from the ages of 2 or 3. When memories of events such as: the first day of school, the birth of siblings when the client was older than 2 but younger than school age, or household moves during this early age range, are absent from early memories, I assess the client for early head injury. Almost always, I find that there was such an event.

It is well known that after a significant concussion in adulthood, many people have a gap in their chain of continuous memory, usually from just before the head injury until sometime after it. The length of this interval of amnesia varies, and I assume that its duration is probably related to the severity of the brain injury. When a brain injury occurs in infancy or early childhood, it would not be surprising that the onset of a continuous memory record would be delayed.

One very interesting case history, which led me to this line of thought, concerned a mature adult who had detailed early memories of events before the age of about 6, who had suffered a severe concussion at about that age, involving a blow the the back of the head. Memory loss included the rest of elementary school, with the onset of continuous memory beginning again at about age 12. This client had led a life marked by impulsivity and intense emotion, which was the reason for coming to see a psychologist.

I would ask the usual editor of this section to add information to this article, about neurological factors relevant to the onset of continuous childhood memory. Concussions are not the only relevant factor: meningitis, including meningitis from diseases like measles, and infections which involved the brain, are also relevant.

The hypothesis which I am putting forward here, that early brain injury would easily account for most cases of people with an absence of early memory, is important because it could compete with other common theories invoked for the absence of early memory. Theories involving a history of sexual abuse, or involving 'repression' of traumatic events, should be seen in comparison with an explanation which is not invested with values and politically fashionable emotion. However, I am not aware of the relevant published research. I will continue to look, and will return to this page with my findings. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Patterns section could use work

The causes listed for gender and age differences seemed biased towards post-modernism. What about innate differences? I am sure they exist, but it is hard to find such research because it is not politically correct. The article asserts that the types of childhood memories is based on the types of conversations boys and girls have as children.

Well, I have 2 problems with that. Why do they have different conversations? Why do they want to? I grew up as a nerd and didn't take most cues for what I did or said from society. Children are primarily selfish and act impulsively, so what they say would have to come from something within and based on the few things they experienced. And what about children who are culturally deprived and who still develop in seemingly stereotypical manners? It seems someone is afraid to say that male and female brains may have at least some subtle differences, or that different racial groups could have subtle difference in the structures of the brain which are independent from their culture. The differences could be genetic, or related to other external factors like nutrition and amount of time the parents interact with the children.

My other problem is the amount of conversation during the memory periods discussed. How much conversation do toddlers under age 4 have? They mostly are in their own worlds and just do.

I won't say the editor or the quoted source are wrong, and I am sure there are other sources. I am only saying this explanation is incomplete and needs expansion. 72.11.40.181 (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing Project

We are involved in a project to update this webpage through Davidson College. This is our overall plan of improvement on the article:

1) Rewrite the existing information using more understandable syntax.

2) Insert more context around the statements cited in the article (many of the claims are inadequately explained).

3) Add more citations for existing sections - mainly language, emotion, physical development, and history (early/modern observation) section. As well as giving voice to possible conflicting viewpoints.

4) Add a few sections - one dealing with the difference between episodic, semantic, and procedural memory and why amnesia generally affects only the first, another on emotional trauma and childhood amnesia, and possibly a few more subsections under the patterns section.

5) Rewrite the introduction with a cited definition of childhood amnesia and a summary of the body of the article.

We will be adding citations from influential studies, and would appreciate it if any related studies could be linked to in this talk page - peer-reviewed studies by the APA would be the most helpful. Comments are appreciated.

Tristin Louise (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Sarahay (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Victoria University of Wellington Editing Project

As part of one of my Honours papers, at Victoria University of Wellington, I have been given this page to update. I'll use the information on this talk page and keep adjusting and adding to some of the sections already commented on.

FranGleisner (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Duke University Editing Project

I and some other students have been charged with editing the second and third sections to reduce any repetitiveness present. So far, I have found that the second sentence of Section 2 would fit more, and indeed outlines the content discussed within, Section 3. Also, the second paragraph of section 3 should be edited for clarity. Darcy.watts (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm also working on the Duke project, and I've found that in Section 2 the part dedicated to Free Recall is particularly confusing. It doesn't make a good distinction between what free recall actually is and the methods in which it is used. Specifically it mentions that free recall is for early childhood memories, but in reality it can be used for many different types of memory recall. I also think it would be beneficial to have a greater description of what free recall is because, from this article, I have a hard time understanding it. Ehardiman (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this section could use some flushing out. It seems like as of right now the Free Recall section is devoted to one specific form. Darcy.watts (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am also working on the Duke project, and I noticed that some of the age ranges that are mentioned in section 2 and section 3 contradict each other. In section 2, it is stated that the earliest memories a person can recall are between ages 2-8, but hasn't past research found that infantile amnesia occurs typically until age 4/5, and so most people do not remember events prior to the age of 4/5? Therefore, I think the multitude of ages that is presented in these two sections create confusion about the actual time period of when memories begin to be remembered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abw28 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Ashley (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I edited some of the more extraneous and confusing information for clarity in section 2, but feel free to do more because it is by no means finished. Darcy.watts (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm part of the Duke project too, and I'd like to reword/clarify the definition of memory "availability" and "accessibility" in the 3rd section. I think it's not as clear as it could be at the moment. RosaYang (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you already get a chance to edit this section? "Availability is when the memory, or some representation of the memory, exists somewhere in the memory system. Accessibility is being able to reach or retrieve a memory when needed". If not, I thought it was clear enough. What are the other changes you were thinking about? Adaaka (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I made those edits. Let me know of any other suggestions or changes to the definitions. RosaYang (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm part of the Duke project as well. The section on free recall in section 2 is rather contradictory and confusing. It states that free recall is more accurate than cued recall, then follows that by saying there is actually no significant difference between cued and free recall, then finally cites a "major benefit" of free recall. I believe it would be helpful to reorganize these ideas into a more logically comprehensive flow. Devinrajan95 (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Devin, I totally agree with you, that this section is very confusing. I would love to see more science behind this or explanation of how this helps individuals recall more information from earlier ages. I felt like this paragraph was very vague and cursory and I walked away more confused than anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmbradshaw12 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this sentence is confusing: "Childhood amnesia, also called infantile amnesia, is the inability of adults to retrieve episodic memories before the age of 2–4 years, as well as the period before age 10 of which adults retain fewer memories than might otherwise be expected given the passage of time." First, what is an episodic memory? Second, it is very long (almost 50 words). How can you convey these ideas more clearly? Elizareader (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

These two sentences are redundant: "Research has demonstrated that children can remember events from before the age of 3–4 years, but that these memories decline as children get older.[4][5]" and "Research has shown that children have the capacity to remember events that happened to them from age 1 and before while they are still relatively young, but as they get older they tend to be unable to recall memories from their youngest years.[6]." I would cut the first one. Elizareader (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This needs some kind of transition: "Psychologists differ in defining the offset of childhood amnesia. Some define it as the age from which a first memory can be retrieved around 3-4 but can range from 2 to 8 years..." I would be clearer that you are talking about adults. For example, what about: The offset of childhood amnesia is defined as... Oftentimes this occurs around age 4.5 years but can range... Elizareader (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Lede needs complete revision - why not try using well formed English sentences?

Horribly written. Almost incomprehensible.
Sentence 1."Childhood amnesia, also called infantile amnesia, is the inability of adults to retrieve episodic memories which are memories of specific events (times, places, associated emotions, and other contextual who, what, when, and where) before the age of 2–4 years, as well as the period before age 10 of which adults retain fewer memories than might otherwise be expected given the passage of time." This is NOT A SENTENCE! It is a concatenation of sentence fragments. It is so abominably written as to defy parsing. How about this:"Childhood amnesia, also called infantile amnesia, is the inability of adults to remember specific events which occurred to them before 2–4 years of age. Some authors use the term childhood amnesia to include loss of episodic memories of events experienced prior to age 10."
Sentence 2."The development of a cognitive self is also thought by some to have an effect on encoding and storing early memories." What?! This is a complete sentence but a complete failure to express a relevant point (something about development (or lack thereof) of "cognitive self" causing this effect.) It should be REMOVED. (or improved to make a point, if it is important enough to occur in the lede, which I doubt.)
Sentence 3."Some research has demonstrated that children can remember events from the age of 1, but that these memories may decline as children get older." Some research? Is it or is it not accepted as true? "children"? or "SOME children"?? What does "memories may decline" MEAN??? We're still talking about specific episodic memories, right? Is there ANY debate that MOST children's memories of their early childhood are fragmented and incomplete?? I don't think so; there's no "may" about it.
Sentence 4."Most psychologists differ in defining the offset of childhood amnesia." Aside from the fact that "offset" has no apparent meaning here, how can most psychologists differ? I guess that implies that there are at least 3 definitions, none of which has a simple majority of adherents, meaning any one group differs from the majority...What rubbish! Why not say there are various opinions on "offset" with no single definition dominating the literature? I really have no idea what "offset" is. Nor why "adults" must be the ones experiencing it. Does this mean a 16 year old unable to remember something that occurred at age 3 is different from a 26 year old with the same problem? But I digress...
Sentence 5."Some define it as the age from which a first memory can be retrieved around 3-4 years, but it can range from 2 to 8 years." Here we go again. There is NO significance in stating "some" do this or that. Also, I highly DOUBT that "Some define offset as the age from which a first memory can be retrieved." for the simple reason that offset suggests that we're talking about a delta-T (from what, I don't know). Why is "offset" even being used or defined here??!! It makes the lede less clear and has no explanatory power. I assume we're either talking about a range of chronological years starting either at a date after birth, or at a developmental threshold (date of earliest (retained? encoded?) episodic memory and extending for between 2 to 8 years in length. But I don't know what the author's intent was since s/he didn't make it clear. Again.
Sentence 6. "Changes in encoding, storage and retrieval of memories during early childhood are all important when considering childhood amnesia." Hyperbolic rubbish. "all important"? meaning nothing else is as important such as genes, health, stress, pre- or post-adolescent trauma? Rubbish."It is believed that changes in encoding, storage and retrieval of memories during early childhood are very important in causing childhood amnesia."
Sentence 7."Some other research shows differences between gender and culture, which is implicated in the development of language." Another weaselly "some"?? wow. If it has been well established that differences in either gender or culture affect childhood amnesia, then say so. If it's speculative, then it probably doesn't belong in the lede. If the research is so tenuous as to require "some" as a qualification, then it definitely doesn't belong in the lede.
Sentence 8." Childhood amnesia is particularly important to consider in regard to false memories and the development of the brain in early years."?? "consider in regard to..." Why? Are you really claiming that childhood amnesia affects brain development IN THE EARLY YEARS? Since it occurs in ADULTS, time travel must be involved, huh? Wow. No confusion of cause and effect here! Much.
Sentence 9."Proposed explanations of childhood amnesia are Freud's trauma theory (which is not supported by evidence and is generally discredited), neurological development, development of the cognitive self, emotion and language." Freud?? OMG!! Why not mention greek mythology? If Freud has been completely discredited - and he has - then OBVIOUSLY he should not be mentioned in the lede!! His work is NOT relevant!!!
Well, that's it. The lede is the worst written I've encountered in the 10+ years I've been commenting on Wikipedia. But, on the positive side, it isn't the worst lede I've come across; others have had much more garbage and false claims included. But someone really really needs to edit this. If I were going to do it, I'd remove a lot of the extraneous material, but perhaps someone who is actually knowledgeable about this (and is capable of articulating it) will take up the challenge of explaining the diversity of opinion about what the subject included (I wonder if "infantile amnesia" can be applied to a 10 year old? I'd guess not) as well as the causes (neurological development, language development, etc.)173.191.243.18 (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Childhood amnesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720033813/http://pjackson.asp.radford.edu/4McCloskeyetal1988memory.pdf to http://pjackson.asp.radford.edu/4McCloskeyetal1988memory.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Rewording for Ethnicity, culture, and society

The whole section's wording is confusing. For instance, "This effect was due to Chinese females, whose average age at first memory was 6.1 years" Chinese females were not the reason for the effect, and the writing should be revised. Moreover, it would be good to include the year of the publications mentioned in the section, and the relationship between the America vs Korea paper and New Zealand vs China paper should be clearer. Danieltaocf (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

More on personality implication

The personality section is vague. For instance, how early is considered to be early recollections? Does the relationship hold globally, or does it only apply for certain ethnic groups? What does "open in daily lives" mean? More explanations of the paper cited here and more clarification would be appreciated. Danieltaocf (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with you that the personality section is a bit vague and confusing. I think more discussion of the studies that are cited would be helpful. I also noticed that both papers cited in the personality section are by the same author, so I think adding another study by a different author that has corresponding results would help this section with credibility (Btking111 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC))

This section needs improvement, specficially with what is really meant by personality. I also think there is a sentence that can be misleading for the readers:"People who reveal a more detailed memory are more likely to be open in their daily lives and disclose a range of personal information to others." It is a true statement, yet it is rather about how much personal information one chooses to share rather than what someone can or cannot recall due to childhood amnesia. It can be misinterpreted as people who are more "open" with their personal lives can have better recalling of events that occured during their childhood. Ecehanyurukoglu (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

I completely agree with your suggestions for the personality and ethnicity, culture, society sections. Especially in the personality section, the article proposes a very strong claim 'Individuals' first memories significantly reflect their personality traits.' however doesn't back up with any specific studies. In order to increase credibility, I think it would be nice if you can find a research example proving/disproving this claim. Additionally, ethnicity differences definitely need a better explanation. The relation between gender and cultural differences is vague. Also, the difference between collectivistic and individualistic cultures is not supported by significant study results. Elif Tunaboylu (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not certain that this belongs here, but the lack of childhood amnesia from 3 to 8 led to the discovery of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Brigham Young ordered the massacre of settlers from Arkansas to California. He ordered the murder of all over 7. He wanted the raise the children as Morons. He believed that the children would not remember (maybe, a mule kicked him in the head when he was 7). His followers believed that this is a bad idea because they could remember back to early childhood; so therefore, the coder children will remember too, but complied because he was their cult-leader. Many of the older children (age 3 to 7 at the time of the massacre) gave vivid and accurate testimony against the Morons later. One can read about it at Mountain Meadows Massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.163.147 (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Infantile amnesia

Should this be renamed to "infantile amnesia"? Infantile amnesia refers specifically to the inability to recall events that happened before the age of 2, while childhood amnesia refers to the scarcity of memories before the age of 6. Countryboy603 (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I also think the page should be edited to focus only on infantile amnesia. Not being able to vividly recall events before the age of six isn't as common.--Countryboy603 (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

This article was full of inaccuracies before. Butcherings that went unchanged for 10+ years. It got the definition of childhood amnesia totally wrong and hardly anyone questioned it. Schwarbage (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)