logo
Why can't we remember our lives as babies or toddlers?

Why can't we remember our lives as babies or toddlers?

The Guardian15-02-2025

Life must be great as a baby: to be fed and clothed and carried places in soft pouches, to be waved and smiled at by adoring strangers, to have the temerity to scream because food hasn't arrived quickly enough, and then to throw it on the ground when it is displeasing. It's a shame none of us recalls exactly how good we once had it.
At Christmas, I watched my daughter, somehow already a toddler, being passed between her grandfathers and thought, wistfully: she won't remember any of this. In parks, I push her endlessly on swings, making small talk with fellow parents who have been yoked into Sisyphean servitude, and think, ruefully: why won't she remember any of this?
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
In 1905, Sigmund Freud coined the term 'infantile amnesia', referring to 'the peculiar amnesia which, in the case of most people, though by no means all, hides the earliest beginnings of their childhood'. More than a century later, psychologists are still intrigued by why we can't remember our earliest experiences.
'Most adults do not have memories before two to three years of age,' says Prof Qi Wang at Cornell University. Up until about age seven, memories of childhood are typically patchy.
Until relatively recently, researchers thought that young brains weren't developed enough to form lasting memories. But studies in the 1980s showed that toddlers as young as two can form memories and recall events from months earlier in great detail. Exposure to early childhood trauma is also well documented to increase the risk of later anxiety and depression. The paradox of infantile amnesia, says Cristina Alberini, a professor of neural science at New York University, is 'how is it that those experiences affect our life forever if they are forgotten?'
Alberini's research in animals has found that memories formed during the infantile amnesia period are, in fact, stored in the brain until adulthood, even though they aren't consciously remembered. In both animal and human adults, forming and storing long-term memories about one's life experiences isn't possible without a region of the brain known as the hippocampus. Alberini's work has shown that the region is also important in early memories and suggests that infantile amnesia occurs because of a critical period where the hippocampus develops due to new experiences. 'It makes a lot of sense with all the literature of trauma,' she says. 'If the children are learning difficult situations in early childhood, maybe they don't remember the specifics, but their brains are going to be shaped according to that experience.'
Differing experiences may also explain why the age at which people recall their first memories varies significantly. Wang, an expert in how culture affects autobiographical memory, has shown that the earliest memories in Americans date from an age of about 3.5 years, almost six months younger than in Chinese people. The American memories tended to be more self-focused and emotionally elaborate, while the Chinese recollections tended to centre on collective activities and general routines, she found.
'In the Asian context, identity and sense of self is less defined by being unique, but [more] about your roles and your relationship with others,' Wang says. To that end, memories may be less important for defining identity than for informing behaviour and imparting lessons. 'If you want to use memory to construct a unique sense of identity, you probably remember a lot of idiosyncratic details,' Wang says.
Another explanation for the discrepancy seems to be how parents discuss past experiences with their children. In New Zealand Māori, first memories emerge earlier than in those of a European background, at about 2.5 years old. Prof Elaine Reese at the University of Otago, who studies autobiographical memory in children and adolescents, points to a strong emphasis on oral traditions in Māori culture but also elaborative conversations when reminiscing about past events.
Reese has tracked groups of children from toddlerhood to adolescence, finding that individuals who had richer narrative environments in childhood could recall earlier and more detailed first memories as teenagers. This was the case for children whose mothers asked open-ended questions and were more detailed when talking about shared past experiences, as well as children who grew up in extended family households.
'We know that from the time [children] are, say, six-month-old babies, they're capable of some kind of mental imagery of something that happened from the previous day or week,' Reese says. 'It's taking that mental image and describing it in words that I think is so important for helping them to hold on to that memory over a lifetime.'
Sign up to Afternoon Update
Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
Ironically, for parenting influencers who post about elaborate holidays in the name of creating 'core memories', the early events that children retain can be surprisingly mundane – 'things that most parents would never reminisce elaboratively about', Reese says. 'The classic example from my own research is a child who remembers seeing a worm on the footpath one time.'
There is debate between memory experts as to the role of language in infantile amnesia. Human researchers suggest memories may be limited by an inability to give language to early experiences. 'But there must be something more fundamental that also plays a role because we see this same [infantile amnesia] effect in non-linguistic animals like rats,' says Prof Rick Richardson of the University of New South Wales.
The brain lays down memories not as discrete files as on a computer but as networks of neurons across the brain. Recalling a memory activates those networks and strengthens the links between neurons. This is not to say memory is stable: 'Every time you revisit a memory and think about it, you're changing it,' Reese says.
Repeated suggestions can lead people to create images and form false memories, Wang says, citing a famous case in Jean Piaget, the influential child development psychologist. Piaget had a clear memory of his nanny fighting off a would-be kidnapper when he was two – but years later, she confessed that she had fabricated the story.
In a 2018 survey, 39% of respondents reported their first memories occurred at age two or younger. The researchers suggested that 'improbably early' memories, such as recollections of being pushed in a pram or walking for the first time, were likely fictional and based on photographs or family stories. But though memory is malleable and young children are more suggestible, 'confabulation is not that common', Wang says. 'Under normal conditions, even children do not just take for granted whatever you tell them and incorporate those memories.'
So if experiences of our early milestones – first birthday, first steps, first trip to the beach – seem to be cached somewhere in the brain, why can't we consciously access them? While psychologists say it can be adaptive to forget, that doesn't explain why the memories formed before age seven seem to decay faster than when we're adults. Alberini hypothesises that early unrecalled memories may function as schemas upon which adult memories are built. Like the foundations of a home, they remain concealed but crucial.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

RFK Jr reveals his plan for vaccine committee after he fired entire panel sparking ‘anti-vaxxers' concern
RFK Jr reveals his plan for vaccine committee after he fired entire panel sparking ‘anti-vaxxers' concern

The Independent

time5 hours ago

  • The Independent

RFK Jr reveals his plan for vaccine committee after he fired entire panel sparking ‘anti-vaxxers' concern

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has revealed that he doesn't plan on placing 'anti-vaxxers' on a federal vaccine policy advisory committee after removing all its previous members, sparking concerns about who he may appoint next. 'None of these individuals will be ideological anti-vaxxers,' Kennedy wrote in a long post on X. 'They will be highly credentialed physicians and scientists who will make extremely consequential public health determinations by applying evidence- based decision-making with objectivity and common sense.' The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) makes recommendations on the use of vaccines to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Kennedy said he would announce the new members of the panel in the coming days and that they will be in place before the committee's next meeting, set for June 25. The X post came about a day after he removed all 17 members of the committee, signaling a dramatic change in American vaccine policy. Kennedy, who ran as a Democrat and then as an independent in the 2024 presidential election before dropping out and endorsing Trump, has become known as an anti-vaccine activist. He has made a number of false claims about the damage vaccines can do, such as the measles shot being connected to autism. The secretary claimed that removing all members of the panel was necessary to restore trust in vaccines as well as the CDC. Kennedy attempted to argue on Tuesday night that there had been 'historical corruption' at the committee. 'The most outrageous example of ACIP's malevolent malpractice has been its stubborn unwillingness to demand adequate safety trials before recommending new vaccines for our children,' Kennedy claimed. The secretary tried to connect childhood vaccines that 'modify the immune system' to an 'epidemic of autoimmune diseases' and suggested that vaccine makers don't test their vaccines for safety because they're not part of placebo-controlled trials. 'No one can scientifically ascertain whether these products are averting more problems than they are causing,' said Kennedy. Former CDC Director Dr. Tomas Frieden told PBS News, 'We're already seeing a decreased immunization rate.' 'When Secretary Kennedy says he wants to restore trust, the fact is that his activities over many years have been one of the main reasons there are questions about vaccines,' he added. Frieden argued that lower vaccination rates will lead to struggles to control measles, which he noted was eliminated in the U.S. in 2000. 'We're now having more cases and more deaths than we have had in many years, and whooping cough, which is increasing,' he said. The former CDC director told PBS News that Kennedy is 'undermining and stopping a process that has been transparent, effective, and fact-based, and replacing it with we don't know what, but based on untrue statements, misinformation, and, frankly, fringe beliefs.'

Vaccine sceptic RFK Jr disbands government advisory committee on immunisations
Vaccine sceptic RFK Jr disbands government advisory committee on immunisations

Telegraph

timea day ago

  • Telegraph

Vaccine sceptic RFK Jr disbands government advisory committee on immunisations

Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US Health Secretary and a prominent vaccine sceptic, has dismissed all 17 members of a committee that issues official government recommendations on immunisations. In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Mr Kennedy claimed that 'retiring' the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) was necessary to help rebuild trust in vaccines and ensure 'unbiased' health recommendations. 'The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine,' he said, adding that he wanted to 'ensure the American people receive the safest vaccines possible'. The move – which some committee members found out about via the media – has been widely criticised by public health experts and scientists, who point to Mr Kennedy's long track record questioning the efficacy and safety of vaccines, sometimes based on dubious science. 'We have just watched politics bury science,' said Dr Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota. 'If you look at [Kennedy's] accusation that he's doing this because of growing problems with vaccine trust – well, that's kind of like an arsonist complaining that so many houses are on fire,' Dr Osterholm said. 'He's the one that's been seeding these doubts for the last decade.' Since he became the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mr Kennedy has taken a number of controversial decisions related to vaccines – including from bypassing ACIP to issue new Covid vaccine guidance, to stopping adverts for seasonal influenza shots and cancelling a $766 million contract with Moderna to develop a bird flu jab for humans. Now, Mr Kennedy has claimed the ACIP needs a complete overhaul because members have too many conflicts of interest, and are immersed 'in a system of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms that enforce a narrow pro-industry orthodoxy'. But his move appears to directly contradict promises given during his confirmation hearings. Bill Cassidy, a Republican Senator from Louisiana who is also a doctor, said he only voted for the appointment after Mr Kennedy committed to maintain ACIP 'without changes'. 'Of course, now the fear is that the Acip will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion,' Mr Cassidy wrote on X on Monday. 'I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.' In a statement, Dr Bruce A Scott, executive director of the American Public Health Association, added that Mr Kennedy's move would help drive an increase in vaccine-preventable diseases, at a time when vaccine coverage is declining across America. 'Today's action to remove the 17 sitting members of ACIP undermines that trust and upends a transparent process that has saved countless lives,' Dr Scott said. 'Rapid destruction' of critical oversight The committee is attached to the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) and included 17 experts – including epidemiologists, infectious disease doctors, vaccine experts and paediatricians – who typically serve overlapping four-year terms. Eight of the members were appointed in January 2025. But it has been in flux since Mr Kennedy assumed office, with its first meeting delayed by the department, before the Health Secretary announced new Covid-19 recommendations in a video posted on social media – unilaterally changing the guidance without an ACIP consultation. Still, retiring all panellists – and deleting a webpage listing the members – has come as a shock to some. Dr Noel Brewer, a professor in public health at the University of North Carolina who was a member of the ACIP, told the Telegraph his removal was 'very unexpected,' given he was meant to serve for three more years. He added that he heard about it only when 'received a copy of the Wall Street Journal article from a journalist', and later received an email confirming it at 5:48pm. 'The most immediate impact of this action is to destroy trust among healthcare providers in ACIP,' said Dr Brewer, a behavioural scientist who specialises in research about why people do or don't get vaccinated. 'The top priority right now is to restore trust in ACIP recommendations. If that is not possible, then it is time for medical organisations to create an alternative vaccine advisory committee for the nation.' On this, there has already been some progress. Earlier this year, CIDRAP launched the Vaccine Integrity Project, which aims to facilitate conversations and offer advice about US vaccine policy – almost like a version of ACIP that's not aligned to the government. 'When I started the vaccine integrity project, there were a lot of doubters that anything of major consequence would happen… [especially after] Kennedy promised in his Senate hearings that he would not take vaccines away from anyone,' said Dr Osterholm. 'Well, look at all this change. 'We are watching the very rapid destruction of critically important vaccine evaluation oversight efforts of the US government, both at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and the CDC. These are committees that have performed marvellously well.' He added: 'It's terribly significant. The real victims are the public, specifically young children, who are going to face a very different world of vaccine preventable diseases than even a decade ago… I don't know what happens next, but it doesn't bode well.'

EXCLUSIVE Warning over hair loss cream used by millions after doctors discover freaky side effect
EXCLUSIVE Warning over hair loss cream used by millions after doctors discover freaky side effect

Daily Mail​

timea day ago

  • Daily Mail​

EXCLUSIVE Warning over hair loss cream used by millions after doctors discover freaky side effect

Doctors have issued a warning about hair growth treatment minoxidil after a woman grew a beard. The 28-year-old reported using hair growth spray minoxidil to treat her hair loss caused by alopecia, suffered by 7million Americans that causes hair loss. Patients apply the medication, sold as a spray or foam, to the scalp and leave it in to absorb. However, the unnamed woman wore a wig during the day and cap at night, which causes the drug to be absorbed at much higher levels in her blood. It then traveled elsewhere in her body, causing uncontrollable hair growth in her face, arms and legs. Doctors say the 40million Americans who take the drug should be aware of the risks of wearing tight caps while taking it. Minoxidil, sold in the US under brand name Rogaine, is applied to the scalp to stimulate hair growth. It costs around $60 for a six-month supply. Doctors writing in as medical journal said: 'Exceeding this dose does not improve efficacy but significantly increases the risk of systemic absorption and adverse effects.' The FDA approved safe dose of the spray, which the woman used, is one milliter twice per day, or six sprays. While side effects are usually minor, such as scalp irritation or changes in hair texture or color, the drug has been linked to excess hair growth and loss. The woman in the case report was diagnosed with androgenetic alopecia, a form of hair loss caused by genetic predisposition or an imbalance of hormones like estrogen and androgens. Prior to treatment, the woman, from France, had a large bald spot on the top of her head. She had mild anemia and vitamin D, both of which can deprive hair follicles of oxygen and cause hair loss, but had no other health issues. Along with vitamin D and zinc supplements, she used five percent minoxidil spray twice a day for two months. She also had done three monthly sessions of LED therapy and plasma-rich plasma injections (PRP), which are meant to separate plasma from the blood and inject it back into the scalp. Plasma is rich in platelets, which have growth factors. After two months of minoxidil treatment, she returned to doctors with increased hair growth on her face, arms and legs. Doctors found wearing a wig during the day and a tight cap at night after applying minoxidil left the woman's scalp 'constantly occluded, day and night.' This means her scalp was constricted and hair follicles became blocked, leading the body to absorb higher amounts of minoxidil than if her hair follicles were still open. The doctors believe this lead to 'systemic absorption' of the drug and effectively a higher than safe dose. The experts wrote: 'Minoxidil is an effective treatment but can occasionally lead to hypertrichosis, especially when applied in high concentrations or over large areas of the body. 'This case illustrates the critical need for precise patient instruction on the correct application of topical therapies to prevent adverse systemic effects such as hypertrichosis.' The woman had laser hair removal on her face and stopped taking minoxidil. She continued with her other treatments.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store