Aging and monitoring associative learning: Is monitoring accuracy spared or impaired?

Mixed lists of associatively related and unrelated paired associates were used to study monitoring of associative learning. Older and younger adults produced above-chance levels of relative accuracy, as measured by intraindividual correlations (γ) of judgments of learning (JOLs) with item recall. JOLs were strongly influenced by relatedness, and this effect was greater for older adults. Relative accuracy was higher for unrelated than for related pairs. Correlations of JOLs with item recall for a randomly yoked learner indicated that access to one's own encoding experiences increased relative accuracy. Both age groups manifested a contrast effect (lower JOLs for unrelated items when mixed with related items). Aging appears to spare monitoring of encoding, even though it adversely affects associative learning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Empirical analysis of the intrinsic–extrinsic distinction of judgments of learning (JOLs): Effects of relatedness and serial position on JOLs.

A. Koriat's (1997) cue-utilization framework provided a significant advance in understanding how people make judgments of learning (JOLs). A major distinction is made between intrinsic and extrinsic cues. JOLs are predicted to be sensitive to intrinsic cues (e.g., item relatedness) and less sensitive to extrinsic cues (e.g., serial position) because JOLs are comparative across items in a list. The authors evaluated predictions by having people make JOLs after studying either related (poker flush) or unrelated (dog-spoon) items. Although some outcomes confirmed these predictions, others could not be readily explained by the framework. Namely, relatedness influenced JOLs even when manipulated between participants, primacy effects were evident on JOLs, and the order in which blocks of items were presented (either all related items first or all unrelated items first) influenced JOLs. The authors discuss the framework in relation to these and other outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The interplay between value and relatedness as bases for metacognitive monitoring and control: Evidence for agenda-based monitoring.

Two experiments are reported examining how value and relatedness interact to influence metacognitive monitoring and control processes. Participants studied unrelated and related word pairs, each accompanied by point values denoting how important the items were to remember. These values were presented either before or after each pair in a between-subjects design, and participants made item-by-item judgments of learning (JOLs) predicting the likelihood that each item would be remembered later. Results from Experiment 1 showed that participants used value and relatedness as cues to inform their JOLs. Interestingly, JOLs increased as a function of value even in the after condition in which value had no impact on cued recall. Participants in Experiment 2 were permitted to control study time for each item. Results showed that value and relatedness were simultaneously considered when allocating study time. These results support a cue-weighting process in which JOLs and study time allocation are based on multiple cues, which may or may not be predictive of future memory performance, and complements the agenda-based regulation model of study time (Ariel, Dunlosky, & Bailey, 2009) by providing evidence for agenda-based monitoring. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Encoding fluency is a cue used for judgments about learning.

The authors used paired-associate learning to investigate the hypothesis that the speed of generating an interactive image (encoding fluency) influenced 2 metacognitive judgments: judgments of learning (JOLs) and quality of encoding ratings (QUEs). Results from Experiments 1 and 2 indicated that latency of a keypress indicating successful image formation was negatively related to both JOLs and QUEs even though latency was unrelated to recall. Experiment 3 demonstrated that when concrete and abstract items were mixed in a single list, latency was related to concreteness, judgments, and recall. However, item concreteness and fluency influenced judgments independently of one another. These outcomes suggest an important role of encoding fluency in the formation of metacognitive judgments about learning and future recall. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Aging and recollection in the accuracy of judgments of learning.

Dual-process theories propose that episodic memory performance reflects both recollection of prior details as well as more automatic influences of the past. The authors explored the idea that recollection mediates the accuracy of judgments of learning (JOLs) and may also help explain age differences in JOL accuracy. Young and older adults made immediate JOLs at study and then completed recognition or recall tests that included a recollect/familiar judgment. JOLs were found to be strongly related to recollected items but not to items remembered on the basis of familiarity. The pattern was weaker in older adults, consistent with age-related declines in recollection. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Exploring a mnemonic debiasing account of the underconfidence-with-practice effect.

Judgments of learning (JOLs) underestimate the increase in recall that occurs with repeated study (the underconfidence-with-practice effect; UWP). The authors explore an account in terms of a foresight bias in which JOLs are inflated when the to-be-recalled target highlights aspects of the cue that are not transparent when the cue appears alone and the tendency of practice to alleviate bias by providing learners with cues pertinent to recall. In 3 experiments the UWP effect was strongest for items that induce a foresight bias, but delaying JOLs reduced the debiasing effects of practice, thereby moderating the UWP effect. This occurred when delayed JOLs were prompted by the cue alone (like during testing), not when prompted by the cue-target pair (like during study). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Judgments of learning reflect encoding fluency: Conclusive evidence for the ease-of-processing hypothesis.

According to the ease-of-processing hypothesis, judgments of learning (JOLs) rely on the ease with which items are committed to memory during encoding—that is, encoding fluency. Conclusive evidence for this hypothesis does not yet exist because encoding fluency and item difficulty have been confounded in all previous studies. To disentangle the effects of encoding fluency and item difficulty on JOLs, we used a variant of the learner–observer–judge method in which participants observed the study phase of another participant and indicated his or her JOLs. At the same time, the to-be-studied word pairs were concealed by strings of symbols. Our experiment revealed that participants use self-paced study time as a cue for JOLs when they themselves have studied and recalled word pairs before. This metacognitive monitoring of study time provides strong support for the ease-of-processing hypothesis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Mending metacognitive illusions: A comparison of mnemonic-based and theory-based procedures.

Previous research indicated that learners experience an illusion of competence during learning (termed foresight bias) because judgments of learning (JOLs) are made in the presence of information that will be absent at test. The authors examined the following 2 procedures for alleviating foresight bias: enhancing learners' sensitivity to mnemonic cues pertaining to ease of retrieval and inducing learners to resort to theory-based judgments as a basis for JOLs. Both procedures proved effective in mending metacognitive illusions--as reflected in JOLs and self-regulation of study time--but only theory-based debiasing yielded transfer to new items. The results support the notion that improved metacognition is 1 key to optimizing transfer but also that educating subjective experience does not guarantee generalization to new situations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Illusions of competence for phonetically, orthographically, and semantically similar word pairs.

Illusions of competence are thought to arise when judgements of learning (JOLs) made in the presence of intact cue-target pairs during study create a “foresight bias,” such that JOLs are inflated by the apparent association between a cue and a target, despite the lack of benefit this association has for recall performance. For example, Castel, McCabe, and Roediger (2007) recently demonstrated an illusion of competence for identical word pairs (mouse—mouse). In two experiments, the authors examined possible sources for this overconfidence, including phonetic, semantic, and orthographic similarity. An illusion of competence was found for homophones, synonyms, orthographically similar, and unrelated items, whereas no illusion of competence was found for word pairs with a relatively high forward-semantic association. Self-paced study times indicated that encoding fluency was not closely associated with the magnitude of overconfidence. Error data revealed participants may have been engaging in strategic responding in order to maximise correct recall. Our results underscore the importance of considering factors that influence both JOLs and recall performance when considering sources of (mis)calibration in absolute accuracy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Lack of Pervasiveness of the Underconfidence-With-Practice Effect: Boundary Conditions and an Explanation Via Anchoring.

The authors investigated whether underconfidence in judgments of learning (JOLs) is pervasive across multiple study-test trials as suggested by A. Koriat, L. Sheffer, and H. Ma'ayan (2002) or whether underconfidence with practice (UWP) might be a kind of anchoring-and-adjustment effect, such that the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the UWP effect depends on whether recall is above a psychological anchor. Participants studied normatively difficult items or normatively easy items and made immediate JOLs or delayed JOLs. The UWP effect occurred for easy items, but for difficult items an overconfidence-with-practice (OWP) effect occurred for delayed JOLs and no bias occurred for immediate JOLs. The systematic occurrence of all 3 outcomes establishes boundary conditions for the UWP effect and confirms the hypothesis that underconfidence (or the lack thereof) may arise at least in part from an anchoring-and-adjustment mechanism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Judgments of learning are affected by the kind of encoding in ways that cannot be attributed to the level of recall.

The authors investigated the theoretical question of whether different kinds of encoding can affect judgments of learning (JOLs) beyond any indirect effects arising from the differences those kinds of encoding produce on the likelihood of recall. They found that JOLs were more accurate after encoding by means of intentional learning than after encoding by means of incidental learning, even when the likelihood of recall did not differ for those kinds of encoding (Experiment 1), and were more accurate when intentional encoding occurred by generating the responses than by reading the responses (Experiment 2). An aggregation effect for JOLs was also discovered: Making JOLs about the likelihood of recall for an aggregate of items yielded less overconfidence (and even underconfidence) in contrast to the typical overconfidence of item-by-item JOLs. The overall pattern of findings suggests that JOLs are theoretically rich and are based on more than whatever underlies the likelihood of recall. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The role of memory for past test in the underconfidence with practice effect.

According to the Memory for Past Test (MPT) heuristic, judgments of learning (JOLs) may be based, in part, on memory for the correctness of answers on a previous test. The authors explored MPT as the source of the underconfidence with practice effect (UWP; A. Koriat, L. Sheffer, & H. Ma'ayan, 2002), whereby Trial 1 overconfidence switches to underconfidence by Trial 2. Immediate and delayed JOLs were contrasted because only immediate JOLs demonstrate UWP. Consistent with MPT for immediate JOLs, Trial 1 test performance better predicted Trial 2 JOLs than did Trial 2 test performance. Delayed JOLs showed the reverse. Furthermore, items forgotten on Trial 1 but remembered on Trial 2 contributed disproportionately to UWP, but only with immediate JOLs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Response strategies inlist learning by orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus × P. abelii).

Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) develop strategies to acquire and execute serial lists (K. B. Swartz & S. A. Himmanen, 2001). Serial probe recognition studies of list memory have demonstrated similarities across monkeys and humans (S. F. Sands & A. A. Wright, 1980). The present study extended the investigation of list learning and memory to determine whether orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus × P. abelii) would show evidence of subjective organization of photographic lists in a manner similar to that shown by humans learning a list of unrelated words (E. Tulving, 1962). No evidence for the effective use of a subjective organization strategy was found, but the orangutans developed a right-to-left spatial response strategy, which emerged during the acquisition of 5-item lists. This strategy was an effective way to reduce the load on working memory when presented with a complex array of items. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Attributing study effort to data-driven and goal-driven effects: Implications for metacognitive judgments.

In self-paced learning, when the regulation of effort is goal driven (e.g., allocated to different items according to their relative importance), judgments of learning (JOLs) increase with study time. When it is data driven (i.e., determined by the ease of committing the item to memory), JOLs decrease with study time (Koriat, Ma’ayan, & Nussinson, 2006). Because the amount of effort invested in different items is conjointly determined by data-driven and goal-driven regulation, an attribution process must be postulated in which variations in effort are attributed by the learner to data-driven or goal-driven regulation before the implications for metacognitive judgments are determined. To support the reality of this process, the authors asked learners to adopt a facial expression that creates a feeling of effort and induced them to attribute that effort either to data-driven or to goal-driven regulation. This manipulation was found to determine the direction in which experienced effort affected metacognitive judgment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Metamemory judgments and the benefits of repeated study: Improving recall predictions through the activation of appropriate knowledge.

Correspondence between judgments of learning (JOLs) and actual recall tends to be poor when the same items are studied and recalled multiple times (e.g., A. Koriat, L. Sheffer, & H. Ma’ayan, 2002). The authors investigated whether making relevant metamemory knowledge more salient would improve the association between actual and predicted recall as a function of repeated exposure to the same study list. In 2 experiments, participants completed 4 study–recall phases involving the same list of items. In addition to having participants make item-by-item JOLs during each study phase, after the 1st study–recall phase participants also generated change-in-recall estimates as to how many more or fewer words they would recall given another exposure to the same study list. This estimation procedure was designed to highlight repeated study as a factor that can contribute to recall performance. Activating metamemory knowledge about the benefits of repeated study for recall in this way allowed participants to accurately express this knowledge in a free-recall context (Experiment 2), but less so when the memory test was cued recall (Experiment 1). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: A meta-analytic review.

Many studies have examined the accuracy of predictions of future memory performance solicited through judgments of learning (JOLs). Among the most robust findings in this literature is that delaying predictions serves to substantially increase the relative accuracy of JOLs compared with soliciting JOLs immediately after study, a finding termed the delayed JOL effect. The meta-analyses reported in the current study examined the predominant theoretical accounts as well as potential moderators of the delayed JOL effect. The first meta-analysis examined the relative accuracy of delayed compared with immediate JOLs across 4,554 participants (112 effect sizes) through gamma correlations between JOLs and memory accuracy. Those data showed that delaying JOLs leads to robust benefits to relative accuracy (g = 0.93). The second meta-analysis examined memory performance for delayed compared with immediate JOLs across 3,807 participants (98 effect sizes). Those data showed that delayed JOLs result in a modest but reliable benefit for memory performance relative to immediate JOLs (g = 0.08). Findings from these meta-analyses are well accommodated by theories suggesting that delayed JOL accuracy reflects access to more diagnostic information from long-term memory rather than being a by-product of a retrieval opportunity. However, these data also suggest that theories proposing that the delayed JOL effect results from a memorial benefit or the match between the cues available for JOLs and those available at test may also provide viable explanatory mechanisms necessary for a comprehensive account. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

How Many Dimensions Underlie Judgments of Learning and Recall? Evidence From State-Trace Methodology.

The authors used state-trace methodology to investigate whether a single dimension (e.g., strength) is sufficient to account for recall and judgments of learning (JOLs) or whether multiple dimensions (e.g., intrinsic and extrinsic factors) are needed. The authors separately manipulated the independent variables of intrinsic and extrinsic cues, determining their state traces for recall and JOLs. In contrast to the supposition that intrinsic cues have similar effects on both recall and JOLs whereas extrinsic cues affect JOLs less strongly than recall (i.e., 2 dimensions underlying recall and JOLs), the authors found repeated support for the sufficiency of a single dimension for both recall and JOLs (not only immediate JOLs but also delayed JOLs) across a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic cues. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning.

How do people monitor their knowledge during acquisition? A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning (JOLs) is outlined, distinguishing 3 types of cues for JOLs: intrinsic, extrinsic, and mnemonic. In 4 experiments using paired-associates learning, item difficulty (intrinsic) exerted similar effects of JOLs and recall. In contrast, the extrinsic factors of list repetition, item repetition within a list, and stimulus duration affected JOLs less strongly than recall, supporting the proposition that extrinsic factors are discounted in making JOLs. Although practice impaired calibration, increasing underconfidence, it did improve resolution (i.e., the recall-JOL correlation). This improvement was seen to reflect a shift in the basis of JOLs with practice, from reliance on intrinsic factors, towards greater reliance on mnemonic-based heuristics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Statistical learning induces discrete shifts in the allocation of working memory resources.

Observers can voluntarily select which items are encoded into working memory, and the efficiency of this process strongly predicts memory capacity. Nevertheless, the present work suggests that voluntary intentions do not exclusively determine what is encoded into this online workspace. Observers indicated whether any items from a briefly stored sample display had changed. Unbeknown to observers, these changes were most likely to occur in a specific quadrant of the display (the dominant quadrant). Across 84 subjects and 5 groups of observers, change detection accuracy was significantly higher for items in the dominant quadrant, suggesting that memory encoding was biased towards the dominant quadrant. Only 9 of the 84 subjects were able to correctly specify the dominant quadrant when asked whether any location was more likely to contain the changed item, but more sensitive forced-choice procedures did reveal above-chance discrimination of the dominant quadrant. Nevertheless, because forced choice performance was unrelated to the size of the bias and no observer reported a biased encoding strategy, the bias was unlikely to depend on voluntary encoding strategies. The encoding bias was not due to a reduction in the response threshold for indicating changes in the dominant quadrant (Experiment 2). Finally, separate measures of the number and resolution of the representations in memory suggested that encoding was biased in a discrete slot-based fashion (Experiment 3). That is, although items in the dominant quadrant were more likely to be encoded into memory, mnemonic resolution for the favored items was not affected. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Recollection-based prospective metamemory judgments are more accurate than those based on confidence: Judgments of remembering and knowing (JORKS).

Five experiments were conducted to examine whether the nature of the information that is monitored during prospective metamemory judgments affected the relative accuracy of those judgments. We compared item-by-item judgments of learning (JOLs), which involved participants determining how confident they were that they would remember studied items, with judgments of remembering and knowing (JORKs), which involved participants determining whether studied items would later be accompanied by contextual details (i.e., remembering) or would not (i.e., knowing). JORKs were more accurate than JOLs when remember–know or confidence judgments were made at test and when cued recall was the outcome measure, but not for yes–no recognition. We conclude that the accuracy of metamemory judgments depends on the nature of the information monitored during study and test and that metamemory monitoring can be improved if participants are asked to base their judgments on contextual details rather than on confidence. These data support the contention that metamemory decisions can be based on qualitatively distinct cues, rather than an overall memory strength signal. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)