785490

research-article2018
FLA0010.1177/0142723718785490First LanguageAxelsson et al.

FIRST
Article LANGUAGE

First Language
2018, Vol. 38(6) 582­–595
Napping and toddlers’ memory © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
for fast-mapped words sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0142723718785490
https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723718785490
journals.sagepub.com/home/fla

Emma L. Axelsson
The Australian National University, Australia; Uppsala University, Sweden

Jaclyn Swinton and Amanda I. Winiger

The Australian National University, Australia

Jessica S. Horst
University of Sussex, UK

Abstract
When toddlers hear a novel word, they quickly and independently link it with a novel object
rather than known-name objects. However, they are less proficient in retaining multiple
novel words. Sleep and even short naps can enhance declarative memory in adults and
children and this study investigates the effect of napping on children’s memory for novel
words. Forty two-and-a-half-year-old children were presented with referent selection
trials for four novel nouns. Children’s retention of the words was tested immediately
after referent selection, four hours later in the afternoon, and the following morning. Half
of the toddlers napped prior to the afternoon retention test. Amongst the toddlers who
napped, retention scores remained steady four hours after exposure and the following
morning. In contrast, for the wake group, there was a steady decline in retention scores
by the following morning and significantly lower retention scores compared to the nap
group. Napping following exposure to novel word–object associations could help in
maintaining memories and limiting decay. Nap duration was also associated with better
retention scores, but there were no effects of sleep quality, habitual napping, or sleepiness.
The findings have implications for the role of napping in children’s language acquisition.

Keywords
Declarative memory, naps, sleep-related learning, toddlers, word learning

Corresponding author:
Emma L. Axelsson, Research School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Science Road,
Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
Email: emma.l.axelsson@gmail.com
Axelsson et al. 583

Young children regularly encounter novel objects and are not always explicitly provided
with their labels; nevertheless, they develop strategies to disambiguate the referents of
novel words (Waxman & Booth, 2000). One example, referred to as ‘referent selection’ or
sometimes ‘fast mapping’ (Carey, 1978), occurs when children select a novel object in
response to hearing a novel word particularly when the novel object is in the context of
known-name objects. Children are often highly accurate at referent selection, but without
appropriate memory supports retention of fast-mapped words is typically poor, particu-
larly when tests involve retention of multiple novel words (e.g. Horst & Samuelson,
2008). Children’s later recognition of word–object associations, or even their independent
recall and production, are dependent on long-term retention of word–object associations.
While fast mapping provides initial exposure, word learning involves a gradual strength-
ening of word–object associations (Carey, 1978; McMurray, Horst, & Samuelson, 2012).
Memory supports associated with enhanced retention following fast mapping include
explicit naming of objects after fast mapping (Horst & Samuelson, 2008), making the
objects appear more salient (Axelsson, Churchley, & Horst, 2012; Vlach & Sandhofer,
2012) and providing pre-exposure to the objects (Kucker & Samuelson, 2012).
Sleep also supports memory and there is evidence of the enhancing effects of overnight
sleep and even short naps in adults (Diekelmann, Wilhelm, & Born, 2009; Lahl, Wispel,
Willigens, & Pietrowsky, 2008). Evidence is mounting with children (Ashworth, Hill,
Karmiloff-Smith, & Dimitriou, 2014; Henderson, Weighall, Brown, & Gaskell, 2012),
and more recently with toddlers and infants (Gómez, Bootzin, & Nadel, 2006; Horvath,
Myers, Foster, & Plunkett, 2015; Sandoval, Leclerc, & Gómez, 2017; Williams & Horst,
2014). Toddlers are typically polyphasic sleepers (Horvath et al., 2015; Galland, Taylor,
Elder, & Herbison, 2012) and this coincides with a period of expansive language acquisi-
tion (Fernald, Perfors, & Marchman, 2006). Slow wave sleep (SWS) can enhance declara-
tive memories, such as memories of facts and novel words (Lahl et al., 2008; Plihal &
Born, 1997). As the earlier stages of sleep (Stickgold & Walker, 2005) and children’s naps
(Kurdziel, Duclos, & Spencer, 2013) contain greater proportions of SWS, this could
explain why napping enhances children’s retention of words recently encountered
(Axelsson, Williams, & Horst, 2016). According to the active system consolidation (ASC)
theory (Rasch & Born, 2013), the cortical and hippocampal neuronal circuits activated
during initial exposure and encoding, are reactivated during subsequent sleep (Diekelmann,
Biggel, Rasch, & Born, 2012), and SWS sleep helps to reorganise and transfer memory
representations to neocortical areas for longer term storage (Feld & Diekelmann, 2015).
Sleep duration can also affect memory consolidation due to prolonged memory reac-
tivations during sleep (Diekelmann et al., 2009). Lahl et al. (2008) found that a six-
minute nap enhanced adults’ retention of word lists, but naps greater than 35 minutes
were more beneficial. Nap duration is also positively associated with young children’s
memory of object locations (Kurdziel et al., 2013).
Importantly, sleep can stabilise and even strengthen new and initially labile memory
representations (Diekelmann et al., 2009), particularly when sleep occurs within a few
hours of exposure to new material (Horvath et al., 2015; Tucker et al., 2006; Williams &
Horst, 2014). Williams and Horst (2014) found that three-year-old children who napped
within 45 minutes of exposure to novel words through storybook reading retained sig-
nificantly more words than those who remained awake. This effect endured 24 hours as
584 First Language 38(6)

Table 1.  Napping habit in the nap and wake groups.

M (SD) Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Nap 1.55 (0.69) 11 7 2 – –
Wake 3.00 (1.26)  1 8 5 2 4

well as 7 days after exposure to the novel words. However, explicit testing of the effect
of sleep on children’s retention of fast-mapped words is yet to be investigated.
In the present study, two-and-a-half-year-old toddlers were exposed to four novel
word–object associations via referent selection. Retention was tested immediately after,
four hours later, and the following morning. Following immediate retention testing, half
of the children napped and the other half remained awake. Children were tested the fol-
lowing morning to ensure that all children were equally rested (see Kurdziel et al., 2013).
As napping can help consolidate and prolong declarative memories in young children
(e.g. Hupbach, Gómez, Bootzin, & Nadel, 2009; Williams & Horst, 2014), toddlers who
napped after referent selection were expected to retain more novel words compared to
children who remained awake and to possibly demonstrate an increase in retention across
time. Children wore actigraphy watches to determine whether sleep duration and/or
sleep quality also played a role in their retention of fast-mapped words.

Method
Participants
The final sample consisted of 40 monolingual children with 20 in the nap (8 girls) and 20 in
the wake group (12 girls). A further 9 were excluded from analyses due to experimenter error
(n = 1), failure to fast map at least one word (n = 3), and failure to complete the initial session
(n = 5). There was no significant difference in age (nap: M = 29 months, 8 days, SD = 11 days;
wake: M = 29 months, 9 days, SD = 30 days; t(38) = −0.68, p = .498, d = 0.22), or vocabulary
size as measured by the OZI (an Australian adaptation of the MacArthur–Bates Communicative
Development Inventory, Kalashnikova, Schwarz, & Burnham, 2016) between the two groups
(nap: M = 472 words, SD = 65 words; wake: M = 471 words, SD = 86 words; t(38) = −0.57,
p = .572, d = 0.18). Group assignment was determined by whether children incidentally
napped after the initial session. Habitual napping is associated with sleep-related memory
consolidation and non-habitual nappers tend not to demonstrate enhanced memory following
napping (e.g. Kurdziel et al., 2013; Sandoval et al., 2017; Williams & Horst, 2014).
Significantly more of the children in the nap group (90%, 18/20) than in the wake group
(45%, 9/20) regularly napped (always or usually), Fisher’s Exact test, p = .006 (see Table 1).

Apparatus and materials

Using Experiment Builder (1.10.1630) software,1 the fast mapping and immediate reten-
tion trials were presented to the children on a 24-inch Dell monitor and the images were
Axelsson et al. 585

presented in an area with a 1024 × 768 resolution (40 × 30 cm, 36.87 × 28.07° at a 60 cm
distance).
Fatigue can confound task performance (Kurdziel et al., 2013). Therefore, we had the
experimenter, parents and the children themselves rate children’s sleepiness with the
Maldonado Pictorial Sleepiness Scale (Maldonado, Bentley, & Mitchell, 2004). The
scale presents neutral faces depicting varying degrees of sleepiness, from wide awake (1)
to very sleepy (5), and is highly correlated with the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (Hoddes,
Zarcone, Smythe, Phillips, & Dement, 1973) and Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (Akerstedt
& Gillberg, 1990).
CamNtech Actiwatches (MotionWatch 8) recorded sleep-related variables in one-
minute epochs using Motion Ware software algorithms (CamNtech, 2015). An accel-
erometer estimates wake/sleep periods based on bodily movement (Ancoli-Israel
et al., 2003). Actigraphy data were interpreted in conjunction with parent-recorded
sleep diaries. Sleep duration was measured using ‘actual sleep %’ which is the per-
centage of the assumed sleep time (from falling asleep to waking up). Indices of sleep
quality were chosen in accordance with the literature (e.g. Sadeh, Gruber, & Raviv,
2002) and included: ‘sleep latency’ (bed time until sleep onset), ‘sleep efficiency’
(percentage of time in bed spent sleeping) and ‘fragmentation index’ (degree of sleep
disruption).

Stimuli
There were 58 familiar words used in the familiarisation trials and as competitors in the
fast mapping trials. All were selected from the OZI (Kalashnikova et al., 2016). Four
novel words were used. With ostensive naming, 30-month-old children can potentially
retain four novel words (Horst, Scott, & Pollard, 2010). The novel images and their
labels (see Figure 1) were chosen from the Novel Object and Unusual Name (NOUN)
Database (Horst & Hout, 2016). Familiarity and saliency of the items are adult-rated and
the objects were chosen due to their low familiarity ratings (range: 6–26%); and rela-
tively similar levels of saliency (range: 59–84%). The average size of the objects was 53
× 79 mm (5.05 × 7.53° at a 60 cm distance).

Procedure and design

The Human Research Ethics Committee at the first author’s institution approved the
study. There were three testing sessions: the first at the university consisting of a fast
mapping and immediate retention test, followed by two delayed retention tests com-
pleted at the child’s home: post-nap retention four hours later, and a post-nocturnal
retention the following morning.

Warm-up and familiarisation.  There was an initial warm-up period to ensure children were
comfortable and could understand the pointing task. Three A3 posters each with three
coloured pictures of familiar objects were attached to a wall and children were asked to
point to objects on the poster. Praise was given for correct choices and guidance for
incorrect selections.
586 First Language 38(6)

Figure 1.  Novel stimuli used in the experiment. Labelled from left to right, top to bottom: kiv,
cheem, noop, hux.

Familiarisation trials.  Children sat either in a booster seat, car seat, or on a parent’s lap
60 cm from the display monitor and 55 cm from the eye-tracker. A five-point calibra-
tion pattern was used and validated (to < 2.5° accuracy) using animated targets.
Three warm-up trials introduced children to the display and procedure. Children
were centrally fixated prior to the onset of the three images with an animated atten-
tion-getter (barking dog). Audio asking children to point at the target (‘Can you see
the__? Point to the__. Where is the__?’) played on a loop until children pointed or
until a 30-second limit. The experimenter hit the space bar once the child pointed,
but the keyboard was disabled up 1000 ms after the offset of the first presentation of
the target noun to ensure children heard a complete question at least once (‘Can you
see the__?’). Children were praised on correct trials and provided with guidance
when incorrect.

Fast mapping.  Each of the 16 fast mapping trials comprised one novel and two familiar
objects positioned across the left, middle and right of the screen. Using the same audio
prompts as the familiarisation trials, eight trials were novel target trials and each of the
four novel stimuli were the target object twice, but never in succession. Novel target tri-
als alternated with eight different familiar target trials. Familiar target trials were included
to ensure children pointed to relevant target objects rather than selecting only novel
objects. Across trials children saw each novel object four times: twice as a target and
twice as a competitor on a familiar object trial. There were four versions of the experi-
ment counterbalancing the order in which each novel object appeared and the novel tar-
get position (left, middle, right). No feedback was provided.
Axelsson et al. 587

Immediate retention.  Four novel objects appeared in each quadrant of the screen (see Figure
1). There was one familiar target trial to familiarise children with the new layout. Four
novel target retention trials followed and only novel objects appeared, using the same audio
prompts as before. Target location differed across trials. No feedback was provided. A sec-
ond coder, blind to the hypotheses, coded video recordings of children’s points for 25% (n
= 10) of the participants. Inter-coder reliability was on average .91 (range: .89–1.00).

Post-nap and post-nocturnal retention.  A four-hour delay allowed children to nap at any point
without interruption. Post-nap and post-nocturnal retention testing were completed with an
iPad programmed using Xcode 6. Experimenters ensured that children were free from dis-
traction before starting testing. Experimenters began the iPad tasks with four familiar target
trials that used the same procedure as the immediate retention trials. As before, responses
were disabled until 1000 ms after the offset of the first presentation of the target noun to
ensure children heard the question at least once. Familiar target trials were repeated until
participants successfully chose the targets. The four novel targets appeared in the same format
and order as the immediate retention session, and no feedback was provided. Children in both
groups received the same number of test trials and were tested the same number of times.

Results
The key dependent variable was children’s retention accuracy on the four-alternative
forced-choice retention trials at each of the three testing sessions: immediate, post-nap
and post-nocturnal. Specifically, we computed the proportion of the retention trials on
which children correctly chose previously fast-mapped novel referents. Of interest was
whether retention differed from chance (0.25) at each session and, importantly, whether
there were differences in retention between the nap and wake groups. Finally, any asso-
ciations between retention and sleep duration, sleep quality, habitual napping and sleepi-
ness were assessed.

Fast mapping trials

First, performance during fast mapping was assessed. One-sample t-tests comparing
familiar target accuracy to chance (0.33) indicated that both the nap (M = 0.96, SD =
0.08, t(19) = 33.74, p < .001, d = 7.55) and the wake group performed significantly better
than expected by chance (M = 0.96, SD = 0.07, t(19) = 40.40, p < .001, d = 9.03). The
novel target trials also differed significantly from chance for the nap (M = 0.73, SD =
0.25, t(19) = 7.25, p < .001, d = 1.62) and the wake group (M = 0.65, SD = 0.20, t(19) =
6.96, p < .001, d = 1.56). There were no differences in fast mapping accuracy between
the two groups on the familiar, t(38) = −0.27, p = .791, d = −0.09, and novel target trials,
t(38) = 1.13, p = .265, d = 0.36.

Retention trials
Immediate retention.  Immediate retention scores for both the nap (M = 0.49, SD = 0.33,
t(19) = 3.26, p = .004, d = 0.73) and the wake group were significantly above chance
588 First Language 38(6)

Figure 2.  Density and boxplots of children’s accuracy scores for novel target fast mapping and
each retention phase. Dots denote the means; solid lines, the medians.

(0.25) (M = 0.45, SD = 0.30, t(19) = 3.00, p = .007, d = 0.67). The difference in retention
accuracy between the nap and wake groups was non-significant, t(38) = 0.43, p = .670,
d = 0.14 (see Figure 2), suggesting that both groups had similar retention scores prior to
napping.

Post-nap retention.  In the post-nap retention session, the nap group performed signifi-
cantly greater than chance (M = 0.50, SD = 0.27, t(19) = 4.09, p < .001, d = 0.91), while
the wake group performed at chance level (M = 0.25, SD = 0.23, t(19) = 0.00, p < 1.00,
d = 0.00). This time the nap group was significantly better than the wake group, t(38) =
3.14, p = .003, d = 0.99 (see Figure 2).

Post-nocturnal retention.  At the post-nocturnal retention session, the nap group performed
significantly greater than chance (M = 0.40, SD = 0.32, t(19) = 2.14, p < .045, d = 0.48),
but the wake group did not (M = 0.19, SD = 0.19, t(19) = −1.37, p = .187, d = −.31). The
nap group continued to perform significantly better than the wake group, t(38) = 2.54, p
= .015, d = 0.80 (see Figure 2).

Change in retention across testing sessions

To assess any changes in retention across testing sessions, one-way repeated measures
ANOVAs were performed for each group. For the nap group there was no effect, F(2,38)
= 0.94, p = .388, ηp² = .05, suggesting that there was little change in retention scores
across the three testing sessions for the nap group (see Figure 2). However, there was an
effect of testing session for the wake group, F(2,38) = 7.49, p = .003, ηp² = .28, and a
significant linear trend, F(1,19) = 10.36, p = .005, ηp² = .35 (see Figure 2). Post-hoc com-
parisons using Bonferroni corrections (.05/3 = .017) revealed a significant drop in reten-
tion from the immediate session to both the post-nap, t(19) = 2.74, p = .013, d = 0.61, and
Axelsson et al. 589

Table 2.  Nap and nocturnal sleep variables.

Nap group Wake group

  M (SD) M (SD)
Nap duration 1 h, 21 m (29 m) NA  
Actual nap duration (%) 82.74 (22.08) NA  
Nap latency 13 m (13 m) NA  
Nap efficiency (%) 72.49 (18.58) NA  
Nap fragmentation 33.31 (16.54) NA  
Post-nap sleepiness (1–5) 2.65 (1.09) 2.63 1.07
Nocturnal sleep duration 7 h, 59 m (62 m) 8 h, 58 m (57 m)
Actual nocturnal sleep duration (%) 78.50 (8.15) 83.15 (6.69)
Nocturnal sleep latency 40 m (27 m) 15 m (15 m)
Nocturnal sleep efficiency (%) 73.12 (9.18) 80.36 (6.77)
Nocturnal sleep fragmentation 44.66 (11.76) 36.89 (12.10)
Post-nocturnal sleepiness (1–5) 2.05 (1.19) 1.30 (0.47)

post-nocturnal sessions, t(19) = 3.22, p = .005, d = 1.72. The difference between the post-
nap and post-nocturnal sessions was non-significant, t(19) = 1.08, p = .293,
d = 0.24.

Sleep parameters and retention accuracy

Sleep duration.  The relationship between nap duration and post-nap retention was signifi-
cant, Spearman’s rs(18) = .45, p = .046 (see Table 2), suggesting that the longer children
napped the better their post-nap retention. For nocturnal sleep, due to technical issues (n
= 3) and participant removal of the watch (n = 2), actigraphy data were missing for 5
participants (nap group: 2; wake group: 3). The wake group slept longer than the nap
group overnight, but this difference was non-significant, t(33) = −1.84, p = .075, d =
−0.62 (see Table 2), suggesting that both groups slept for a similar length of time prior
to the post-nocturnal test. The relationship between nocturnal sleep duration and post-
nocturnal retention was non-significant, rs(33) = −.26, p = .133.

Sleep quality.  The difference in nocturnal sleep fragmentation between the nap and wake
groups was non-significant, t(33) = 1.93, p = .063, d = 0.65, indicating that the two
groups had minimal difference in their overnight sleep quality. However, there was sig-
nificantly longer nocturnal sleep latency, t(33) = 3.29, p = .002, d = 1.11, and lower
nocturnal sleep efficiency in the nap compared to the wake group, t(33) = −2.65, p =
.012, d = 0.90 (see Table 2), suggesting that the nap group took longer to fall asleep and
the proportion of time in bed spent sleeping was shorter for the nap compared to the wake
group. A multiple regression analysis was performed to assess the role of nocturnal sleep
fragmentation, nocturnal sleep latency and nocturnal sleep efficiency in post-nocturnal
retention. The model was non-significant (Model 1), F(3,31) = 1.04, p = .389, f_2 = .10
590 First Language 38(6)

(R2 = .09), suggesting that indicators of sleep quality did not predict post-nocturnal
retention.

Habitual napping, sleepiness and retention accuracy

The role of habitual napping and sleepiness on retention was explored. Children’s and
parents’ sleepiness ratings were moderately correlated at the post-nap, rs(37) = .39, p =
.013, and post-nocturnal sessions, rs(38) = .418, p = .007, suggesting a sufficient degree
of agreement between parents and children. Nonetheless, parent ratings were used for the
following analyses. At the post-nap session, sleepiness (see Table 2) did not differ sig-
nificantly between the nap and wake groups, Welch’s t(36.97) = 0.05, p = .958, d = 0.02.
A hierarchical multiple regression revealed that napping habit (see Table 1) and post-nap
sleepiness were not significant predictors of post-nap retention (Model 1), F(2,36) =
1.11, p = .341, f_2 = .06 (R2 = .06), but the addition of whether children napped or not was
(Model 2), F(3,35) = 4.36, p = .010, f_2 = .37 (R2 = .27). Napping or not was also associ-
ated with a significant increase in R2 of .21, F(1,35) = 10.29, p = .003, f_2 = .27.
At the post-nocturnal session, sleepiness was significantly higher in the nap than in
the wake group, Welch’s t(24.78) = 2.62, p = .015, d = 0.83. For post-nocturnal retention,
napping habit (Table 1) and post-nocturnal sleepiness did not contribute significantly to
post-nocturnal retention (Model 1), F(2,37) = 0.46, p = .637, f_2 = .02 (R2 = .02). The
addition of napping or not was also non-significant (Model 2), F(3,36) = 2.26, p = .099,
f_2 = .19; (R2 = .16), but there was a significant increase in R2 (.13) associated with nap-
ping or not, F(1,36) = 5.74, p = .022, f_2 = .15. In sum, despite greater sleepiness in the
nap compared to the wake group, neither children’s sleepiness nor their routine napping
habit significantly predicted retention accuracy. Instead, whether children napped shortly
after exposure to the novel words played a role in retention.

Discussion
The current study explored the role of napping in two-and-a-half-year-old toddlers’
memory for fast-mapped words. There was no significant difference in immediate reten-
tion between the children who later went on to nap and those who did not, suggesting that
both groups had initially retained a similar proportion of words. However, four hours
later, the children who had napped not only retained more novel words than the wake
group, they also performed significantly better than chance. Children were also tested the
following morning to ensure that all children were equally rested as lower retention in
the wake group could be due to fatigue rather than missing any potential sleep-related
memory enhancement (see Kurdziel et al., 2013). As in previous studies (Hupbach et al.,
2009; Kurdziel et al., 2013; Sandoval et al., 2017; Seehagen, Konrad, Herbert, &
Schneider, 2015; Williams & Horst, 2014), the benefit of napping shortly after exposure
to new words carried through until the following morning. Following nocturnal sleep,
children who napped the day before continued to perform better than chance and better
than children who did not nap, suggesting a role for napping in the consolidation of novel
fast-mapped words.
Axelsson et al. 591

Interestingly, the wake group showed a significant decline in retention accuracy from
immediate testing to 4 and 24 hours later. The wake group had significantly lower reten-
tion scores than the nap group at both the post-nap and post-nocturnal phases, further
suggesting that missing the opportunity to nap shortly after fast mapping led to a greater
degree of forgetting across time. Retention accuracy in the nap group was maintained
across time, indicating that providing toddlers with an opportunity to nap shortly after
fast mapping may stabilise the novel word–object associations (Diekelmann et al., 2009;
Hupbach et al., 2009). Stabilisation results in memories being less susceptible to interfer-
ence and forgetting (Munro, Baker, McGregor, Docking, & Arculi, 2012).
One possible explanation for why retention in the nap group stabilised, rather than
increased, could be due to the strength of the word–object associations following encod-
ing (Diekelmann et al., 2009; Tucker & Fishbein, 2008). The active system consolidation
(ASC) theory posits that before memory traces are distributed from the temporary hip-
pocampal stores into long-term stores during sleep, they remain labile and prone to decay
(Diekelmann et al., 2009; Feld & Diekelmann, 2015). Previous research also demon-
strates a decline in children’s retention of fast-mapped words, unless memory supports
are present during or immediately after fast mapping (e.g. Vlach & Sandhofer, 2012).
Collectively, this suggests that without the provision of additional memory supports to
strengthen memory traces prior to sleep, such as ostensively naming the objects during
fast mapping (e.g. Axelsson et al., 2012; Horst & Samuelson, 2008), toddlers’ memory
of fast-mapped words is only maintained rather than enhanced during sleep. Future stud-
ies are needed to explore the role of additional memory supports during fast mapping in
combination with sleep. Such studies could clarify the strength of encoding required
during fast mapping for napping to enhance novel word retention.
The wake group retained significantly fewer fast-mapped words than the nap group at
the post-nocturnal phase. Thus, it appears that delaying the onset of sleep until evening
was associated with a steady decline in retention, which could not be slowed by noctur-
nal sleep. This finding supports previous research indicating that, for young children, a
shorter interval between exposure to the novel words and sleep is beneficial for word
retention (Hupbach et al., 2009; Kurdziel et al., 2013; Seehagen et al., 2015). Specifically,
Hupbach et al. (2009) found a beneficial effect only if napping occurred within four
hours of exposure to the material. Further research is needed to address the effects of the
specific time interval between exposure and sleep onset on children’s word learning.
Children who napped for a longer duration demonstrated greater word retention four
hours later. There is evidence that the effect of sleep on memory consolidation is ‘dose-
dependent’ (Diekelmann et al., 2012; Feld & Diekelmann, 2015), in that a short nap
enhances declarative memory in adults (Lahl et al., 2008), but a longer nap correlates
with better memory retention (Diekelmann et al., 2012). Both SWS and the reactivation
of newly-encoded representations strengthen and enhance declarative memory
(Diekelmann et al., 2012), and as longer periods of sleep contain more SWS and memory
reactivations, they further strengthen these memories (Diekelmann et al., 2009). Notably,
the difference in overnight sleep duration was similar for the two groups and was not a
significant predictor of overnight retention.
Differences in performance between the two groups were also unlikely due to sleepi-
ness or habitual napping. The nap group were actually sleepier than the wake group at the
post-nocturnal session, but their retention scores were significantly higher. Furthermore,
592 First Language 38(6)

napping habit and sleepiness were not significant predictors of retention accuracy.
Instead, whether children napped was associated with increased prediction of retention.
The nap group also had longer nocturnal sleep latency and poorer nocturnal sleep effi-
ciency than the wake group, which is expected as napping can affect nocturnal sleep
(Lam, Mahone, Mason, & Scharf, 2011; Staton, Smith, Pattinson, & Thorpe, 2015).
However, nocturnal sleep quality (as measured by sleep latency, sleep fragmentation and
sleep efficiency) was also not a significant predictor of post-nocturnal retention. Failure
to find an effect of sleep quality on retention accuracy scores is not entirely surprising,
given conflicting results in the literature (e.g. Ashworth et al., 2014; Djonlagic, Saboisky,
Carusona, Stickgold, & Malhotra, 2012; Landry, Best, & Liu-Ambrose, 2015).
One potential limitation of the study is that children’s assignment to the nap and wake
groups was determined by whether they incidentally slept after the immediate test rather
than by random assignment. Napping is typically of benefit for habitual more so than
non-habitual nappers (e.g. Kurdziel et al., 2013; Sandoval et al., 2017). In the current
study, there were more habitual nappers in the nap than the wake group; however, habit-
ual napping and sleepiness were not significant predictors of retention. It is also possible
that other factors besides habitual napping influenced children’s drive to nap in the cur-
rent study. There are multiple factors that can affect whether children nap such as genetic,
maturational and temperamental factors as well as environmental, cultural and parental
factors (Crosby, LeBourgeois, & Harsh, 2005; Dionne et al., 2011; Fisher, van Jaarsveld,
Llewellyn, & Wardle, 2012; Lam et al., 2011; Touchette et al., 2013). Because we did not
use random assignment, we conducted additional analyses to compare the groups to
ensure they were comparable on sleep duration, sleep quality, age and vocabulary. There
were no significant differences between the groups in these variables aside from sleep
quality, as the nap group had poorer nocturnal sleep efficiency and longer sleep latency
than the wake group. Despite this, the nap group had better post-nocturnal retention than
the wake group. However, assigning children to the nap and wake groups experimentally
might help control any additional factors that might lead children to nap.
Another issue to consider is the role that repeated testing could play. Repeated testing
can itself enhance retention, particularly for delayed retention (Dunlosky, Rawson,
Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013; Roediger & Butler, 2011; Roediger & Karpicke,
2006; Sénéchal, 1997). Children in the wake group demonstrated a steady decline in
retention despite repeated testing. However, children in the nap group’s higher than
chance post-nap retention could have strengthened children’s word–object associations,
which were then further consolidated during nocturnal sleep. Sandoval et al. (2017)
tested the effects of napping after nocturnal sleep but not after napping, thereby reducing
the number of testing sessions. Future research should explore how repeated testing
interacts with information consolidated during periods of sleep, including the strength of
the repeated testing effect with and without sleep (see Sandoval et al., 2017).
Finally, another consideration is that the wake group might have experienced a greater
degree of interference by being exposed to additional novel words during the period
when they did not nap. The number of target novel words presented experimentally is not
necessarily the number of novel words that children are being exposed to. For example,
after leaving the lab and the post-nap test phase, children in either group may have heard
new words through conversations, storybooks or songs. The nap group were possibly
exposed to fewer additional words. However, as we did not record children during this
Axelsson et al. 593

phase we cannot determine whether they did hear any additional unknown words.
Nevertheless, even when presented with eight novel words, toddlers are able to learn up
to four and are more likely to learn the words introduced first (Horst & Samuelson,
2008). Therefore, we attribute the poorer retention of the wake group to the group not
napping rather than to interference from multiple words.

Conclusion
Children regularly disambiguate the referents of novel words. However, additional rein-
forcement is required to sufficiently consolidate newly-formed word–object associations
(e.g. Axelsson et al., 2012). The current study indicates an important role for napping in
stabilising and limiting decay of fast-mapped words, and supports providing children
with sufficient opportunity to nap to optimise declarative memory consolidation.

Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the parents and their children for taking part. Thank you also to Sam Hutton from
SR Research for help with Experiment Builder and Data Viewer. Much appreciation also to Georg
Axelsson for help with iPad programming.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Note
1. An EyeLink 1000 eye-tracker (SR Research, http://www.sr-research.com) was also used in
the pre-nap phase, however the eye-tracking data were aimed at addressing a separate research
question and are not reported here. The ‘Remote’ setting together with a high-contrast sticker
on children’s foreheads allowed for movement in a space of 22 × 18 × 20 cm.

ORCID iD
Emma L. Axelsson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6038-6254

References
Akerstedt, T., & Gillberg, M. (1990). Subjective and objective sleepiness in the active individual.
The International Journal of Neuroscience, 52, 29–37.
Ancoli-Israel, S., Cole, R., Alessi, C., Chambers, M., Moorcroft, W., & Pollak, C. P. (2003). The
role of actigraphy in the study of sleep and circadian rhythms. Sleep, 26, 342–392.
Ashworth, A., Hill, C. M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Dimitriou, D. (2014). Sleep enhances memory
consolidation in children. Journal of Sleep Research, 23, 302–308.
Axelsson, E. L., Churchley, K., & Horst, J. S. (2012). The right thing at the right time: Why osten-
sive naming facilitates word learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(88), 1–8.
Axelsson, E. L., Williams, S. E., & Horst, J. S. (2016). The effect of sleep in children’s word reten-
tion and generalization. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1192): 1–9.
CamNtech. (2015). The MotionWatch 8 and MotionWare: User guide. Cambridge, UK: Author.
Carey, S. (1978). The child as a word learner. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. A. Miller (Eds.),
Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 264–293). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
594 First Language 38(6)

Crosby, B., LeBourgeois, M. K., & Harsh, J. (2005). Racial differences in reported napping and
nocturnal sleep in 2- to 8-year-old children. Pediatrics, 115(Suppl. 1), 225–232.
Diekelmann, S., Biggel, S., Rasch, B., & Born, J. (2012). Offline consolidation of memory var-
ies with time in slow wave sleep and can be accelerated by cuing memory reactivations.
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 98, 103–111.
Diekelmann, S., Wilhelm, I., & Born, J. (2009). The whats and whens of sleep-dependent memory
consolidation. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 13, 309–321.
Dionne, G., Touchette, E., Forget-Dubois, N., Petit, D., Tremblay, R. E., Montplaisir, J. Y., &
Boivin, M. (2011). Associations between sleep-wake consolidation and language develop-
ment in early childhood: A longitudinal twin study. Sleep, 34, 987–995.
Djonlagic, I., Saboisky, J., Carusona, A., Stickgold, R., & Malhotra, A. (2012). Increased sleep
fragmentation leads to impaired off-line consolidation of motor memories in humans. PLoS
ONE, 7(3), e34106.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving
students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive
and educational psychology. Psychological Science, 14, 4–58.
Feld, G. B., & Diekelmann, S. (2015). Sleep smart-optimizing sleep for declarative learning and
memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(622), 1–11.
Fernald, A., Perfors, A., & Marchman, V. A. (2006). Picking up speed in understanding: Speech
processing efficiency and vocabulary growth across the 2nd year. Developmental Psychology,
42, 98–116.
Fisher, A., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Llewellyn, C. H., & Wardle, J. (2012). Genetic and environ-
mental influences on infant sleep. Pediatrics, 129, 1091–1096.
Galland, B. C., Taylor, B. J., Elder, D. E., & Herbison, P. (2012). Normal sleep patterns in infants and
children: A systematic review of observational studies. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 16, 213–222.
Gómez, R. L., Bootzin, R. R., & Nadel, L. (2006). Naps promote abstraction in language-learning
infants. Psychological Science, 17, 670–674.
Henderson, L. M., Weighall, A. R., Brown, H., & Gaskell, G. M. (2012). Consolidation of vocabu-
lary is associated with sleep in children. Developmental Science, 15, 674–687.
Hoddes, E., Zarcone, V., Smythe, H., Phillips, R., & Dement, W. C. (1973). Quantification of
sleepiness: A new approach. Psychophysiology, 10, 431–436.
Horst, J. S., & Hout, M. C. (2016). The novel object and unusual name (NOUN) database: A col-
lection of novel images for use in experimental research. Behavior Research Methods, 48,
1393–1409.
Horst, J. S., & Samuelson, L. K. (2008). Fast mapping but poor retention by 24-month-old infants.
Infancy, 13, 128–157.
Horst, J. S., Scott, E. J., & Pollard, J. A. (2010). The role of competition in word learning via refer-
ent selection. Developmental Science, 13, 706–713.
Horvath, K., Myers, K., Foster, R., & Plunkett, K. (2015). Napping facilitates word learning in
early lexical development. Journal of Sleep Research, 24, 503–509.
Hupbach, A., Gómez, R. L., Bootzin, R. R., & Nadel, L. (2009). Nap-dependent learning in infants.
Developmental Science, 12, 1007–1012.
Kalashnikova, M., Schwarz, I.-C., & Burnham, D. (2016). OZI: Australian English Communicative
Development Inventory. First Language, 36, 407–427.
Kucker, S. C., & Samuelson, L. K. (2012). The first slow step: Differential effects of object and
word-form familiarization on retention of fast-mapped words. Infancy, 17, 295–323.
Kurdziel, L., Duclos, K., & Spencer, R. M. C. (2013). Sleep spindles in midday naps enhance learn-
ing in preschool children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 17267–17272.
Lahl, O., Wispel, C., Willigens, B., & Pietrowsky, R. (2008). An ultra short episode of sleep is
sufficient to promote declarative memory performance. Journal of Sleep Research, 17, 3–10.
Axelsson et al. 595

Lam, J. C., Mahone, E. M., Mason, T. B. A., & Scharf, S. M. (2011). The effects of napping on
cognitive function in preschoolers. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 32,
90–97.
Landry, G. J., Best, J. R., & Liu-Ambrose, T. (2015). Measuring sleep quality in older adults:
A comparison using subjective and objective methods. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience,
7(166), 1–10.
Maldonado, C. C., Bentley, A. J., & Mitchell, D. (2004). A pictorial sleepiness scale based on
cartoon faces. Sleep, 27, 541–548.
McMurray, B., Horst, J. S., & Samuelson, L. K. (2012). Supplemental material for word learn-
ing emerges from the interaction of online referent selection and slow associative learning.
Psychological Review, 119, 831–877.
Munro, N., Baker, E., McGregor, K., Docking, K., & Arculi, J. (2012). Why word learning is not
fast. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(41), 1–10.
Plihal, W., & Born, J. (1997). Effects of early and late nocturnal sleep on declarative and proce-
dural memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 534–547.
Rasch, B., & Born, J. (2013). About sleep’s role in memory. Physiological Reviews, 93, 681–766.
Roediger, H. L., III, & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term
retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 20–27.
Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests
improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255.
Sadeh, A., Gruber, R., & Raviv, A. (2002). Sleep, neurobehavioral functioning, and behavior prob-
lems in school-age children. Child Development, 73, 405–417.
Sandoval, M., Leclerc, J. A., & Gómez, R. L. (2017). Words to sleep on: Naps facilitate verb
generalization in habitually and nonhabitually napping preschoolers. Child Development, 88,
1615–1628.
Seehagen, S., Konrad, C., Herbert, J. S., & Schneider, S. (2015). Timely sleep facilitates declara-
tive memory consolidation in infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112,
1625–1629.
Sénéchal, M. (1997). The differential effect of storybook reading on preschoolers’ acquisition of
expressive and receptive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 24, 123–138.
Staton, S. L., Smith, S. S., Pattinson, C. L., & Thorpe, K. J. (2015). Mandatory naptimes in child
care and children’s nighttime sleep. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics,
36, 235–242.
Stickgold, R., & Walker, M. P. (2005). Memory consolidation and reconsolidation: What is the
role of sleep? Trends in Neurosciences, 28, 408–415.
Touchette, E., Dionne, G., Forget-Dubois, N., Petit, D., Pérusse, D., Falissard, B., & . . . Montplaisir,
J. Y. (2013). Genetic and environmental influences on daytime and nighttime sleep duration
in early childhood. Pediatrics, 131, e1874–e1880.
Tucker, M. A., & Fishbein, W. (2008). Enhancement of declarative memory performance follow-
ing a daytime nap is contingent on strength of initial task acquisition. Sleep, 31, 197–203.
Tucker, M. A., Hirota, Y., Wamsley, E. J., Lau, H., Chaklader, A., & Fishbein, W. (2006). A day-
time nap containing solely non-REM sleep enhances declarative but not procedural memory.
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 86, 241–247.
Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2012). Fast mapping across time: Memory processes support
children’s retention of learned words. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(46), 1–8.
Waxman, S. R., & Booth, A. E. (2000). Principles that are invoked in the acquisition of words, but
not facts. Cognition, 77, B33–B43.
Williams, S. E., & Horst, J. S. (2014). Goodnight book: Sleep consolidation improves word learn-
ing via storybooks. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(184), 1–12.