Neurol Sci (2001) 22:377–384
ORIGINAL
F. Nichelli • S. Bulgheroni • D. Riva
Developmental patterns of verbal and visuospatial spans
Received: 17 September 2001 / Accepted in revised form: 20 November 2001
Abstract This study presents developmental data for verbal
and spatial memory tasks: Corsi’s block-tapping test and
Luria’s verbal learning test. Norms have been collected from
275 primary and early secondary school children aged from
5 years, 4 months to 13 years, 6 months. Our results confirm
a slow and constant improvement in performances over time,
and the advantage of about 1.5 items of the verbal span over
the spatial span supports the existence of developmental dif-
ferences between separate memory systems. No significant
sex difference was found even if a slight trend in verbal span
favouring female subjects is present.
Key words Children • Memory development • Corsi’s block-
tapping test • Verbal memory
F. Nichelli • S. Bulgheroni • D. Riva ()
Developmental Neurology Division
C. Besta National Neurological Institute
Via Celoria 11, I-20133 Milan, Italy
© Springer-Verlag 2001
Introduction
Any attempt to understand the functioning of all of the sys-
tems and sub-systems making up memory function must
inevitably consider the changes that have taken place during
the course of its maturation. The usefulness of developmen-
tal studies lies in their validation of the distinctions emerging
from studies of adult patients by dissociating functionally
independent cognitive components and thus contributing
towards the definition of the architecture of cognitive sys-
tems. Furthermore, an understanding of mnemonic abilities
across development is extremely useful in the school envi-
ronment because teaching methods are greatly influenced by
our knowledge of how, and how much, children are able to
learn. Many neuropsychologists and cognitive psychologists
have reached the conclusion that there are many separable
memory systems that can function relatively independently
of one another [1].
The majority of memory tests reveal more or less marked
development tendencies [2]. The most widely studied devel-
opmental curves mainly refer to immediate memory span,
which is measured by offering a subject increasingly longer
sequences of verbal or visual items and establishing the
longest series that he or she can reproduce correctly. The
results of the studies carried out so far agree that there is an
approximately parallel development in verbal (as assessed
with digit span) and visuospatial memory (as assessed with
Corsi’s block-tapping test), with the former showing a con-
stant advantage of about 1.5 items over time [3].
Furthermore, both improve steadily from the age of four
years to adulthood, with considerable increases in perfor-
mance up to the age of eight years followed by a period of
less marked changes.
No definitive consensus has yet been reached concerning
the nature of the changes that take place in short-term mem-
ory during the course of development or, in particular,
whether these are qualitative or quantitative. Simon [4] sug-
gested that the development of short-term memory may be
determined by a progressive increase in the ability to think in
378
chunks, defined as the grouping of objective items into sub-
jective units (e.g. the numerical series “2–3–4–6–8–1” is
stored in the form “23–46–81”). Improvements in short-term
memory have also been attributed to an increase in storage
capacity [5], an improvement in the processes involved in
the storage of memory traces [6], a better use of strategies
[4], or an increase in the efficiency of retrieval [7].
Short-term memory for digits, words or images is also
considered to be an indicator of human ability to process
information [8]. This approach examines the extent to which
the developmental memory trends are due not only to the
greater storage capacity, but also to quantitative variations in
the speed of information processing. On the basis of this
hypothesis, Kail [9] argued that one single mechanism of
processing speed underlies a large number of cognitive tasks
insofar as, however complex it may be, each task can be bro-
ken down into more elementary mental operations with
executive speed as a critical element.
It has been found that verbal span performance is strictly
correlated with speed in target identification, naming and
articulation [10]. This last aspect has been systematically
reconsidered by Baddeley [1], who is the principal supporter
of the existence of separate memory components that collab-
orate in the process of memorization in an independent and
highly specific manner. Baddeley proposed a theoretical
model based on the existence of a central executive system
(which can be expected to undergo considerable develop-
mental modifications) and peripheral components related to
sensory modalities (the phonological loop and the visuospa-
tial sketchpad). Baddeley’s hypothesis has been further sup-
ported by the results of cognitive neuropsychology and brain
imaging studies [11, 12], which have demonstrated the exis-
tence of separate memory systems and brain areas that medi-
ate the execution of tasks involving shortterm phonological
and visuospatial memory. In particular, the area of Broca and
the prefrontal cortex of the left hemisphere are involved in
the functioning of short-term phonological memory storage,
whereas the parietal and prefrontal areas of the right hemi-
sphere are involved in the short-term processing of visu-
ospatial information [13].
Further sub-divisions of these components have subse-
quently been proposed. Logie [14] hypothesized the exis-
tence of two sub-systems inside the visuospatial sketchpad:
a visual store in which the physical characteristics of objects
and events are represented, and a specifically spatial mecha-
nism that is used to plan movements and may act as a repeat-
ing station in order to reactivate the content of visual mater-
ial. The phonological loop may contain a passive sub-com-
ponent that acts as a phonological store, and an active
process of sub-vocal repetition.
A large number of hypotheses have been advanced con-
cerning the nature of developmental changes in short-term
memory, but the most accepted seem to be those sustaining
that the increase in memory span is due to increased effi-
ciency and working speed. What increases with age may not
be the total amount of processing space available, but the
F. Nichelli et al.: Memory development in children
speed and efficiency of the underlying operations. This
means that coding and retrieval operations require less pro-
cessing space and attentive control, and so there is more
room for storage [15, 16].
Finally, recent studies [16] have shown that there is a
high degree of inter-individual variability in terms of mmem-
onic capacity (as is the case for all of the other cognitive
functions). There is no doubt that the ability to retain infor-
mation concerning the visuo-spatial characteristics of events
is mediated by a short-term memory store that is dissociated
from that involved in verbal memory.
Children are capable of processing and storing both types
of information from an early stage of life, and substantial
changes occur between the ages of five and eleven years.
The aims of this study were: (1) to study the developmen-
tal curves of verbal and spatial spans and learning; and (2) to
acquire normative data for a population of Italian children.
Materials and methods
The study participants came from two schools in the Province of
Milan, and were recruited by means of a letter of consent sent to their
parents. Foreign children and those with learning difficulties (as
reported by their teachers or families) were excluded from the study.
The present study consisted of part of a wider survey investigating
different cognitive functions. All children were right-handed.
Given that there was in many cases an overlap in the chrono-
logical age of the children in different school years, it was preferred
to divide the subjects into age groups in order to have more
homogenous groups. The population was therefore divided into
seven age groups (approximating school years), each defined by a
non-overlapping range in months.
All of the children were individually examined on Luria’s ver-
bal learning test and on Corsi’s block-tapping test during school
hours in a room separated from their classroom. The estimated time
for the completion of the two tests was 20 minutes.
Memory tests
Luria’s verbal-learning test employs of a list of 10 semantically
unrelated disyllabic high-frequency words (Table 1) [17] that are
read to the subjects at the speed of one word every 2 s [18]. The list
was repeated until the subject was able to spontaneously recall all
of the words twice in succession without being prompted by the
examiner (or up to a maximum of ten times). The examiner record-
ed the order in which the words were reproduced. This test provides
various indices of memory function: it not only measures the imme-
diate verbal span and capacity of learning, but also makes it possi-
ble to evaluate the presence of primacy and recency effects, which
respectively depend on short- and long-term memory.
The score given for Luria’s verbal-learning test considered not
only the immediate span, but also the learning score obtained by
assigning ten points when the words were correctly reproduced
after the first reading, nine after the second, and so on until zero for
the children who had failed to learn the list after the tenth reading.
F. Nichelli et al.: Memory development in children 379

Table 1 Words and their lexical frequencies in Luria’s verbal-lear- The indices considered in Corsi’s block-tapping test were spatial
ning test span, the total number of correct supraspan sequences, and the num-
ber of recurring and non-recurring supraspan sequences.
Word Lexical frequency

Casa (house) 3371 Data analysis

Bosco (forest) 423
Gatto (cat) 894 For each test, we first evaluated the score distribution in the sample
Notte (night) 560 as a whole in order to exclude any “outliers” (i.e. subjects whose
Tana (den) 72 scores were very different from those of the reference sample) from
Ago (needle) 28 the subsequent calculations. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test,
Torta (cake) 152 which makes it possible determine if the data approximate a normal
Mela (apple) 91 distribution, was then applied, and the data that were not normally
Ponte (bridge) 82 distributed were log transformed.
Libro (book) 292 Given that age was the predictive variable of greatest interest, we
evaluated whether the changes in scores over time were best repre-
sented by a linear, quadratic, cubic, logarithmic or exponential func-
In Corsi’s block-tapping test, subjects are shown a wooden board tion, and then assessed the various models that could be obtained
to which nine cubes are glued; the cubes are numbered, but only on the using the considered explanatory variables in order to establish the
side facing the examiner. Using a forefinger, the examiner begins by one that was theoretically most valid and statistically more predictive
touching cube no. 1 and then touching the surface of the table between and precise. Finally, the parameters calculated for this model were
the examiner and the board. The task of the subject is to touch the same used to find the expected mean score and upper and lower 5% toler-
cube using his/her dominant hand. The process is continued in order ance limits (CIlower/CIupper) for each month of age, and a similar pro-
with all of the cubes up to no. 9 in order to ensure that the task has been cedure was used to calculate the score for each age group.
understood. There are many versions of this test but we decided to use The test scores of each age group were then compared. If the dis-
the original version [19, 20], which consists of the non-verbal version tribution of the data allowed it and the variances of the scores between
of Hebb’s recurring digits [21]. This task is divided into two parts: the different age groups were homogeneous (i.e Levene’s test not signifi-
first evaluates the short-term visuospatial span and the second the cant at 5% level), a parametric comparison was applied and followed
capacity of incidentally learning supraspan sequences (span+1). by paired comparisons of all of the age groups (Sheffé’s test) in order
In order to establish a subject’s immediate span, the examiner to identify significant differences in the mean scores. When the vari-
uses a forefinger to touch progressively longer sequences of cubes ances were not homogeneous, a non-parametric comparison was
(from two to ten) at a rhythm of one cube every 2 s, returning his or applied followed by paired comparisons of the different age groups.
her finger to the surface of the table after each touch. Immediately
after the sequence has been demonstrated, the subject is required to
reproduce it in the same order. Three sequences are presented for
every series: if the subject correctly reproduces at least two of the Results
three sequences, the test continues with the next series; otherwise, it
is stopped. The longest sequence correctly reproduced corresponds to A total of 275 children (128 boys and 147 girls) performed
the subject’s spatial span. Corsi’s block-tapping test, while 238 children (109 boys and
Once the subject’s spatial span has been established, 12 supras-
129 girls) were tested on Luria’s verbal-learning test (Table
pan sequences are presented, one of which is repeated every three tri-
als (the recurring sequence). Various studies have shown that, in nor-
2). Not all children performed both tests, however subjects
mal subjects, the number of correctly reproduced recurring doing Luria’s word list test are the same who are also doing
sequences increases with the number of times they are presented, Corsi’s test. On Luria’s verbal-learning test, both age and
whereas the correct reproduction of non-recurring sequences remains gender were predictors of immediate span performances
low throughout the duration of the test [20]. (Table 3), but two-way ANOVA (by age group and by gen-

Table 2 Division of the study population into seven age groups

Children, n

Age, group Age, months School year Luria’s test Corsi’s test

1 64–83 I primary 31 31
2 84–95 II primary 40 50
3 96–107 III primary 29 33
4 108–119 IV primary 38 47
5 120–131 V primary 46 53
6 132–143 I secondary 31 36
7 144–162 II -III secondary 23 23

Total 238 275

380 F. Nichelli et al.: Memory development in children

Table 3 Immediate span (Luria’s verbal-learning test)

Boys Girls

Age group Mean±SD CIlower 5% Mean±SD CIlower 5%

1 4.1±1.5 2 4.4±1.5 2
2 3.8±1.2 2 4.5±1.1 2
3 5.3±1.2 3 4.9±1.1 3
4 4.8±1.4 3 5.3±1.0 3
5 5.5±1.1 3 6.0±1.2 4
6 6.3±1.6 4 5.8±1.4 4
7 6.2±0.8 4 6.8±0.8 5

der) showed that the between-gender difference related only
to the mean scores of the boys and girls as a whole and
depended on the fact that the girls in each age group had a
slightly higher score boys, although these differences were
not statistically significant.
In terms of the age-group comparisons, Sheffé test with
α=0.05 revealed significant differences between the mean
scores of the children aged 64–95 months (groups 1 and 2) and
those of the children aged 132 months or more (groups 6 and
7). Furthermore, the scores of the children in group 1 were sig-
nificantly lower than those of the children in group 5.
In addition to age, both the maximum and minimum
number of recalled words were predictive of the learning
score (Table 4).
As it was not possible to use ANOVA to compare the age
groups because of the different variances in the seven age
groups [Levene’s test (6, 229)=2.19; p=0.044], we used the
Kruskal-Wallis test, which revealed differences between the
age groups (p<0.0001). In order to discover which age
groups differed from each other, we used a non-parametric
Learning scores
Table 4 Learning scores (Luria’s verbal-learning test)
Age group Mean±SD CIlower 5%
1 3.3±2.6 0
2 2.7±2.8 0
3 4.3±2.9 1
4 6.3±2.2 2
5 6.8±1.8 3
6 6.8±1.5 4
7 7.6±1.2 5
2x2 comparison (Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon’s rank
sum W test (α=0.0024) after Bonferroni’s correction of
α=0.05 corrected for the 21 comparisons made - of the sim-
ple combination of seven classes taken two by two: Cn,k=
binomial coefficient) which revealed significant differences
between the first two age groups and the groups aged more
than 108 months (groups 4–7), as well as between the chil-
dren aged 96–107 months and those aged more than 120

N= 31 40 29 38 45 30 23

64–83 84–95 96–107 108–119 120–131 132–143 144–162

Age, months Fig. 1 Performances in
learning a list of words
F. Nichelli et al.: Memory development in children
months (groups 5–7). Figure 1 shows the trend of the perfor-
mances in the different age groups.
On Corsi’s block-tapping test, age was the the only vari-
able predicting the immediate span (F=76.19, p>0.0001). As
Levene’s test showed that the variances between age groups
were not homogeneous, we used a non-parametric 2x2 com-
parison (Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon’s rank sum W
test with α=0.0024 after Bonferroni’s correction of α=0.05
corrected for the 21 comparisons made – the simple combi-
nation of seven classes taken two by two: Cn,k= binomial
coefficient), which revealed significant differences between
the children aged 64–83 months (group 1) and those aged
more than 96 months (groups 3–7), as well as between those
aged 84–95 months (group 2) and those aged more than 96
months (groups 3–7). Figure 2 shows the trend of the perfor-
mances in the different age groups and Table 5 shows the
detailed results.
In relation to the supraspan indices, no significant
between-group differences were found in terms of the learn-
ing of the recurring sequences: the mode was 3 in all of the
groups, with zero for 5% (1 in the case of group 7). The mean
values in groups 1–4 were tendentially equal (F(3, 157)=
1.11, not significant).
Span
Fig. 2 Immediate N= 31 50
span score on 64–83 84–95
Corsi’s block-
tapping test
Table 5 Immediate span performances on Corsi’s block-tapping test
Age group Mean±SD
1 3.4±0.96
2 3.8±0.77
3 4.2±0.71
4 4.4±0.88
5 4.7±0.90
6 4.6±1.05
7 5.1±0.90
381
There was a significant variation only in the case of group
2 which, because of the greater frequency of subjects with a
score of zero (probably related to the selected sub-group), had
a relatively lower mean value than the other groups. Given the
absence of substantial variations, it can be said that, in terms
of the incidental learning of the recurring sequence, the score
that places a subject below the fifth percentile is zero from the
first primary to the second year of secondary school, and 1 in
the case of third year secondary school children.
The results of Levene’s test in relation to the data con-
cerning the non-recurring sequences were not significant and
so the variances between the different age groups can be con-
sidered homogeneous. We therefore used one-way ANOVA
to compare the mean number of correctly reproduced non-
recurring supraspan sequences in the different age groups.
This revealed the existence of between-group differences,
and a subsequent post hoc Sheffé’s test showed that there is
a difference between the mean scores of the primary school
children and those in the second year of secondary school.
Finally, the overall performance in the supraspan
sequences was analysed by adding the number of correctly
reproduced recurring and non-recurring sequences. As the
results of Levene’s test were not significant, it was possible
33 47 53 36 23
96–107 108–119 120–131 132–143 144–162
Age, months
CIlower 5% CIlower 1%
2 1
2 1
3 2
3 2
3 2
3 3
4 3
382 F. Nichelli et al.: Memory development in children

Table 6 Supraspan performances on Corsi’s block-tapping test

Recurring Non-recurring Total

Age group Mean SD Range CIlow 5% Mean SD Range CIlow 5% Mean SD Range CIlow 5%

1 1.97 1.05 0–3 0 3.77 2.42 0–8 0 5.74 2.86 0–11 1

2 1.56 1.22 0–3 0 2.66 2.23 0–9 0 4.22 2.87 0–12 0
3 1.76 1.12 0–3 0 3.24 2.05 0–7 0 5.00 2.46 0–9 1
4 1.92 1.16 0–3 0 3.23 2.31 0–8 0 5.15 2.99 0–11 0
5 2.27 0.97 0–3 0 3.44 2.32 0–8 0 5.73 2.70 0–11 1
6 2.25 0.10 0–3 0 4.97 2.27 0–8 1 7.22 2.86 1–11 1
7 2.48 0.59 1–3 1 6.87 1.46 4–9 4 9.35 1.87 5–12 5

to compare the seven age groups using ANOVA, which
revealed significant between-group differences. The post hoc
application of Sheffé’s test showed that there was a significant
difference between the mean scores of primary school children
and those of the children attending secondary school, particu-
larly between the children aged 84–95 months (group 2) and
those aged more than 132–143 months (group 6).
Discussion
This study demonstrates the existence of a developmental
increase in verbal span (the number of words correctly
recalled after only one reading of the word list) and visuo-
spatial span (the largest number of cubes touched correctly
during Corsi’s block-tapping test). These findings are in line
with those of other studies of development age [3, 22].
Figure 3 summarizes the results of our subjects in the two
tasks of verbal and spatial learning, and indicates a trend in
performance similar to that reported in the literature: an
advantage of about 1.5 verbal span items over the visual
span, and a slow but constant improvement in performances
over time. Previous studies [3, 22] compared digit span and
Corsi’s span and in our research the administration of a word
span task in the same way as the digit span task (increasing
sequences of words read by the examiner that the subject has
to repeat in the same order) would have allowed a more evi-

4
Span

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Luria’s test Age group

Corsi’s test Fig. 3 Trend in short-

term verbal and
visuospatial spans
F. Nichelli et al.: Memory development in children
dent comparison between verbal and visuo-spatial tasks.
Nevertheless, in children aged 6–12 years, digit and word
spans show no differences within any one age group [23];
therefore we are authorized to make a comparison between
the two tasks results.
The advantage of the verbal over the spatial span may
have been due to the different nature of the material: in addi-
tion to requiring the use of different processing channels, it
is clear that the retrieval of verbal material not only depends
on maturational factors per se but is also dependent on
learned knowledge.
As the development of the central nervous system differs
between the sexes and the various cognitive functions do not
seem to be equally represented, we also investigated the
between-gender difference in performance. Our Corsi test
data do not show the significant difference between males
and females found by Orsini et al. [24, 25] and by Spinnler
and Tognoni [26]: the only between-gender difference in the
administered memory tests was a slight trend in favour of the
females in the word list verbal span. It is of course possible
that the absence of this difference was due to the smaller size
of our sample and/or the age range of reference may have
affected the performance trends: Orsini et al. [24] found this
significant between-gender difference in a study of children
aged 4–10 years, and the results of Spinnler and Tognoni
[26] were obtained in an adult population.
Analysis of the learning data showed that, in addition to
age (which had a significant effect on both verbal and visuo-
spatial learning), the maximum and minimum number of
correctly recalled words also proved to be predictive of a bet-
ter ability to learn the list of words. Therefore it can be said
that the capacity of the short-term component of the memo-
ry store of verbal material also has a certain importance in
relation to more stable and longer-lasting storage.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that there was consider-
able inter-individual variability in the learning of the word
list in groups 1 and 2 (as indicated by the high standard devi-
ation values), whereas a larger number of subjects became
capable of learning efficiently with the passing of time.
Finally, the absence of any significant differences among
age groups in the recurring supra-span sequences of Corsi’s
test can probably be attributed to the different method of
administration used in our study. The original version of the
task [20] is based on the use of 24 supraspan sequences, with
the recurring sequences being presented at an interval of one
in three; the fact that we used only 12 sequences may have
prevented the observation of the effect of incidental learning
previously noted by other authors.
The improvement in memory performances revealed by
our tests seems to be determined by the interaction of bio-
logical and socio-educational maturation factors. During the
course of development, cortical reorganisation in the number
and strength of synaptic connections (particularly in the
frontal lobe and in its connections with the rest of the brain
[27, 28]) eliminates the least used connections and reinforces
those that are more active, thus leading to a general increase
383
in the speed of information processing. On the other hand,
beginning school and the consequent increase in acquired
knowledge revolutionises the cognitive system of children: it
improves the ability to choose and use problem-solving
strategies, some of which become automatic as a result of
repeated use (e.g. the automatic use of reiteration in short-
term memory tests), while the increase in processing speed
allows the task to be completed more quickly, thus diminish-
ing the probability of forgetting or interference.
The results of our study have obvious clinical implica-
tions insofar as there are very few standardised tests relating
to the population of Italian children: the existing normative
data relate to restricted age ranges, or consider only the ver-
bal or spatial aspect of memory [24, 25, 29, 30].
In conclusion, our study confirms the previously report-
ed trend towards a slow and constant improvement in exe-
cuting tasks that not only require short-term memory capac-
ity, but also the conscious and flexible use of information
storage, organisation and retrieval strategies. It also con-
tributes towards providing normative data useful for evaluat-
ing the memory capacities of the Italian children.
Sommario In questo studio vengono presentati i dati norma-
tivi relativi a due compiti di memoria ampiamente utilizzati
nella pratica clinica: il test di Corsi e la memoria di lista di
parole. Il campione è costituito da 275 bambini delle scuola
elementari e media (età dai 5 anni e 4 mesi ai 13 anni e 6
mesi). I nostri risultati confermano l’esistenza di un’evolu-
zione lenta e costante delle prestazioni nel corso del tempo
ed evidenziano un vantaggio di circa 1.5 item dello span ver-
bale su quello spaziale, confermando le differenze di svilup-
po dei due sistemi di memoria. Non sono presenti differenze
di prestazione fra maschi e femmine in nessuna delle prove
somministrate, ad eccezione di una lieve tendenza che favo-
risce le femmine nello span verbale della lista di parole.
References
1. Baddeley AD (1995) La memoria umana. Il Mulino, Bologna
2. Cornoldi C (1995) Sviluppo e disturbi della memoria. In:
Sabbadini G (ed) Manuale di neuropsicologia dell’età evolu-
tiva. Zanichelli, Bologna, pp 624–643
3. Gathercole S (1998) The development of memory. J Child
Psychol Psychiatry 39(1):3–27
4. Simon HA (1974) How big is a chunk? Science 183:482–488
5. Pascual-Leone J (1970) Mathematical model for the transition
rule in Piaget’s developmental strategies. Acta Psychol
32:301–345
6. Dempster FN (1981) Memory span: sources of individual and
developmental differences. Psychol Bull 89:63–100
7. Chechile RA, Richman CL (1982) The interaction of semantic
memory with storage and retrieval development. Dev Rev
2:247–250
384
8. Howard L, Polich J (1985) P300 latency and memory span
development. Dev Psychol 21:283–289
9. Kail RV (1986) Sources of age differences in speed of pro-
cessing. Child Dev 57:969–987
10. Case R, Kurland, DM, Goldberg J (1982) Operational effi-
ciency and the growth of short-term memory span. J Exp
Child Psychol 33:386–404
11. Gazzaniga MS, Ivry RB, Mangun GR (1998) Memory sys-
tems. In: Cognitive neuroscience: the biology of mind. WW
Norton, and Company, New York, pp 247–288
12. Gabrieli JDE (1998) Cognitive neuroscience of human mem-
ory. Annu Rev Psychol 49:87–115
13. Smith EE, Jonides J, Koeppe RA (1996) Dissociating verbal
and spatial working memory using PET. Cereb Cortex 6:11–20
14. Logie RH (1994) Visuospatial working memory. Erlbaum, Hove
15. Case R, Kurland DM, Goldberg J (1982) Operational effi-
ciency and the growth of short term memory span. J Exp
Child Psychol 33:386–404
16. Gathercole SE, Baddeley AD (1993) Working memory and
language. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hove
17. Marconi L, Ott M, Pesenti E, Ratti D, Tavella M (1993)
Lessico elementare. Dati statistici sull’italiano letto e scritto
dai bambini delle elementari. Zanichelli, Bologna
18. Luria AR (1967) Le funzioni corticali superiori nell’uomo.
Giunti Barbera, Florence
19. Corsi PM (1972) Human memory and the medial temporal
region of the brain. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 2,
891B (University Microfilms No. AA105–77717)
20. Milner B (1971) Interhemispheric differences in the localiza-
tion of psychological processes in man. Br Med Bull
3:272–277
F. Nichelli et al.: Memory development in children
21. Hebb DO (1961) Distinctive features of learning in the high-
er animal. In: Delafresnay J (ed) Brain mechanisms and learn-
ing. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 37–51
22. Isaacs EB, Vargha-Khadem F (1989) Differential course of
development of spatial and verbal memory span: a normative
study. Br J Dev Psychol 7:377–380
23. Forrester G, Geffen G (1991) Performance measures of 7- to
15-year-old children on the auditory verbal learning test. Clin
Neuropsychol 5:345–359
24. Orsini A, Grossi D, Capitani E, Laiacona M, Papagno C,
Vallar G (1987) Verbal and spatial immediate memory span:
normative data from 1355 adults and 1112 children. Ital J
Neurol Sci 8:539–548
25. Orsini A (1994) Corsi’s block tapping test: standardization
and concurrent validity with WISC-R for children aged 11 to
16. Percept Mot Skills 79:1547–1554
26. Spinnler H, Tognoni G (1987) Standardizzazione italiana e
taratura di test neuropsicologici. Ital J Neurol Sci 6[Suppl
8]:25–27
27. Tagliabue M, Simion F, Umiltà C, Bonomo B (1994) Lo
sviluppo delle funzioni esecutive. G. Ital Psicol 4:645–663
28. Travis F (1998) Cortical and cognitive development in 4th, 8th
and 12th grade students: the contribute of speed of processing
and executive functioning to cognitive development. Biol
Psychol 48:37–56
29. Andreani Dentici O (1991) Il pensiero in erba. Ricerche sullo
sviluppo dai 5 ai 7 anni. Franco Angeli, Milan
30. Cornoldi C, Fattori L, Ramanzini E, Gruppo MT (1993) Prove
per l’esame della motivazione all’apprendimento della lettura.
OS, Florence