Sequence Specific Motor Performance Gains after Memory Consolidation in Children and Adolescents

Memory consolidation for a trained sequence of finger opposition movements, in 9- and 12-year-old children, was recently found to be significantly less susceptible to interference by a subsequent training experience, compared to that of 17-year-olds. It was suggested that, in children, the experience of training on any sequence of finger movements may affect the performance of the sequence elements, component movements, rather than the sequence as a unit; the latter has been implicated in the learning of the task by adults. This hypothesis implied a possible childhood advantage in the ability to transfer the gains from a trained to the reversed, untrained, sequence of movements. Here we report the results of transfer tests undertaken to test this proposal in 9-, 12-, and 17-year-olds after training in the finger-to-thumb opposition sequence (FOS) learning task. Our results show that the performance gains in the trained sequence partially transferred from the left, trained hand, to the untrained hand at 48-hours after a single training session in the three age-groups tested. However, there was very little transfer of the gains from the trained to the untrained, reversed, sequence performed by either hand. The results indicate sequence specific post-training gains in FOS performance, as opposed to a general improvement in performance of the individual, component, movements that comprised both the trained and untrained sequences. These results do not support the proposal that the reduced susceptibility to interference, in children before adolescence, reflects a difference in movement syntax representation after training

Reduced Susceptibility to Interference in the Consolidation of Motor Memory before Adolescence

Are children superior to adults in consolidating procedural memory? This notion has been tied to “critical,” early life periods of increased brain plasticity. Here, using a motor sequence learning task, we show, in experiment 1, that a) the rate of learning during a training session, b) the gains accrued, without additional practice, within a 24 hours post-training interval (delayed consolidation gains), and c) the long-term retention of these gains, were as effective in 9, 12 and 17-year-olds and comparable to those reported for adults. However, a follow-up experiment showed that the establishment of a memory trace for the trained sequence of movements was significantly more susceptible to interference by a subsequent motor learning experience (practicing a reversed movement sequence) in the 17-year-olds compared to the 9 and 12-year-olds. Unlike the 17-year-olds, the younger age-groups showed significant delayed gains even after interference training. Altogether, our results indicate the existence of an effective consolidation phase in motor learning both before and after adolescence, with no childhood advantage in the learning or retention of a motor skill. However, the ability to co-consolidate different, successive motor experiences, demonstrated in both the 9 and 12-year-olds, diminishes after puberty, suggesting that a more selective memory consolidation process takes over from the childhood one. Only the adult consolidation process is gated by a recency effect, and in situations of multiple, clashing, experiences occurring within a short time-interval, adults may less effectively establish in memory experiences superseded by newer ones

The perception and attitude of educators regarding differentiated teaching in elementary and junior high schools

In the 21st century, the school classroom encompasses great variance between students. Within this differentiated experience teachers must continuously navigate and conduct their lessons. The aim of the current study was to translate the DI-Quest into Hebrew and validate it in Israel, in order to examine the perceptions and integration of differentiated instruction among teachers in Israel. The research included 221 educators who were asked about five components. The findings show significant relations between teachers’ evolving mindset and their work with flexible groups, evaluating teaching, as well as applying differentiated teaching, reflecting that the higher the mindset (indicating an evolving mindset), the higher the application of differentiated teaching and related practical principles. In summary, educators are required to show great flexibility in order to shape learning while adapting to differentiated teaching. They are expected to exercise professional intuition, not only in the context of an orderly curriculum, but mainly to understand students' development and change while learning

Retention and transfer after a single training session.

<p>Shown is performance on the trained and transfer conditions at 48 hours post-training (T, trained; LR, left reversed; RR, right reversed; RT, right trained). Bars –Standard Error.</p

Figure 2

<p>Age dependent effect of post-training interference. (a) Speed and (b) accuracy gains with (♦) and without (□) interference training in the three age-groups. Interference training was given at 2 hours after the termination of the initial training session. Average performance in the initial (init) and the final (end) four blocks of the initial training session, and in four consecutive blocks at 24 hours post-training (24hr post) is shown. Bars–standard error; black arrow - significant interaction; white arrows - no interaction (significant gains in both experiments). Comparison between the three experimental groups' performance at the end of training and at 24 hours post-training in the two experiments, without and with interference (repeated measures ANOVA) showed a significant main effect for time-point for both the number of sequences (speed) and the number of errors (accuracy) (speed: <i>F</i>_(1,110) = 152.06, <i>P</i><.001 accuracy: <i>F</i>_(1,110) = 7.11, <i>P</i><.01) and for age (speed: <i>F</i>_(2,110) = 60.01, <i>P</i><.001 accuracy: <i>F</i>_(2,110) = 6.89, <i>P</i><.001). The only significant interaction (age-group×assessment time×experiment) was for performance speed (<i>F</i>_(2,110) = 6.82, <i>P</i><.05) with the 17-year-olds showing less improvement in the interference condition. There was no significant difference between the two experiments for the end time-point in the 17-year-olds (<i>t</i>₍₃₇₎ = 0.81, <i>P</i> = .42). An analysis of variance for repeated measures, conducted for each age-group separately (with time-points as within-subject factor and age-group and experiment as between-subject factors), showed a significant difference in between-session gains accrued for the initially trained sequence (task A) between the two experiments only in the 17-year-olds (interaction of time-point×experiment, <i>F</i>_(1,37) = 10.62, <i>P</i><.001). The 9 and 12-year-olds improved to a similar degree with and without interference (no interaction of time-point×experiment, <i>F</i>_(1,35) = 2.89, <i>P</i> = .1; <i>F</i>_(1,38 = 2.21, <i>P</i> = .15, 9 and 12-year-olds respectively).</p

Figure 3

<p>Between-session (delayed) gains with (□) and without (▪) interference training in the three age-groups. The absolute gains in terms of mean number of correct sequences at 24 hours post-training compared to the end of the training session. Bars–standard error. There was a significant interaction of condition by age-group for the mean between-session gains <i>(F</i>_(2,110) = 6.82, <i>P</i><.05). Independent-samples t-tests conducted for each age group separately showed a significant advantage of the no interference over the interference condition only in the 17-year-olds (<i>t</i>₍₃₇₎ = 3.26, <i>P</i> = 0.02). There were no significant differences in delayed gains in the two conditions for the 9 and 12-year olds (<i>t</i>₍₃₅₎ = 1.7, <i>P</i> = 0.1; <i>t</i>₍₃₈₎ = 1.49, <i>P</i> = 0.002, 9 and 12-year-olds respectively).</p

Figure 1

<p>Within-session and between-sessions gains in performance in the 3 age-groups. Inset: the two finger-to-thumb opposition movement sequences used in the study. (a) Mean number of correct sequences, and (b) mean number of errors performed in each test interval (block) during the training session and at 24, 48 hours and 6 weeks post training. Bars–standard error.</p

The finger-to-thumb opposition task.

<p>The two sequences were matched for number of movements per digit and mirror-reversed in relation to each other (in terms of order).</p