{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01845342706502636, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007908611599297012, 'mean_word_length': 5.7, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reinstatement versus reactivation effects on active memory in infants.

Reinstatement and reactivation are procedurally different reminder paradigms used with infants and children, but most developmental psychologists do not distinguish between them. In 4 experiments with 102 three-month-olds, we asked if they differ functionally as well. Independent groups of infants received either a reactivation or a reinstatement reminder 3 days after training, when the memory is active, but its specific details have been forgotten. In Experiment 1, we measured retention after increasing delays until infants forgot altogether. A single reinstatement protracted retention twice as long after training as a single reactivation. In Experiments 2-4, whether the reminder was the original training stimulus or a novel one differentially affected the duration and specificity of memory in the 2 procedures as well. These data demonstrate that the distinction between reinstatement and reactivation is not artificial. In addition to differing procedurally, reinstatement and reactivation differ functionally, with different memory-preserving effects.