Monitoring memory errors: The influence of the veracity of retrieved information on the accuracy of judgements of learning

When Memory and Metamemory Align: How Processes at Encoding Influence Delayed Judgment-of-Learning Accuracy

Judgments of learning are most accurate when made at a delay from the initial encoding of the assessed material. A wealth of evidence suggests that this is because a delay encourages participants to base their predictions on cues retrieved from long-term memory, which are generally the most diagnostic of later memory performance. We investigated the hypothesis that different types of study techniques affect delayed JOL accuracy by influencing the accessibility of cues stored in long-term memory. In two experiments, we measured the delayed-JOL accuracy of participants who encoded semantically unrelated and weakly related word pairs through one of three study techniques: reading the pairs twice (study practice), generating keywords (elaborative encoding), or taking a cued-recall test with feedback (retrieval practice). We also measured the accessibility, utilization, and diagnostic quality of two long-term memory cues at the time of the delayed JOL: (a) retrieval of the target, and (b) noncriterial cues (retrieval of contextual details pertaining to the encoding of the target). We found that the accessibility of targets was positively associated with delayed-JOL accuracy. Further, we provide evidence that when study techniques enhance the accessibility of targets, they likewise enhance delayed-JOL accuracy.

The influence of feedback on predictions of future memory performance

Kornell and Rhodes (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 1-13, 2013) reported that correct answer feedback impairs the accuracy of prospective memory judgments. The current experiments explored the boundaries of this effect. In Experiment 1, participants studied Lithuanian-English word pairs, took an initial test, and were either given correct answer feedback or no feedback at all. They then made a judgment of learning (JOL) regarding the likelihood of correctly recalling the English translation on a later test. Presenting the correct answer as feedback increased average JOLs but impaired relative accuracy on a final test. Therefore, Experiments 2-4 aimed to specifically ameliorate impairments in relative accuracy following feedback. Participants in Experiment 2 were exposed to right/wrong feedback, no feedback, and correct answer feedback while making JOLs. Using such a within-subjects design did not improve relative accuracy following correct answer feedback. Experiment 3 showed that previous exposure to a test-feedback-test cycle did not improve relative accuracy. In Experiment 4, feedback was scaffolded such that the correct answer was progressively revealed. Participants corrected more errors if they could generate the correct response with fewer letter cues. However, relative accuracy did not improve in comparison to the previous experiments. Accordingly, the current experiments suggest that participants may understand that feedback is beneficial, but receiving feedback diminishes prediction accuracy for specific items and participants do not appreciate the magnitude of the benefits of feedback.

The Influence of Retrieval Practice Versus Delayed Judgments of Learning on Memory

Abstract. The positive effect of delayed retrieval practice on subsequent test performance is robust; by contrast, making delayed judgments of learning (JOLs) encourages covert retrieval but has a minor influence on final test performance. In three experiments, we experimentally established and explored this memory-metamemory paradox. After initial study of paired associates (e.g., husky – ram), participants either were explicitly tested (husky – ?) or made a JOL. In Experiment 1, we adopted the standard JOL method, using a short retention interval, whereas in Experiments 2 and 3, we used a common testing-effect method involving a longer retention interval. Delayed JOLs did not boost test performance, but explicit delayed tests boosted memory after a longer retention interval. As important, participants spent less time to make JOLs than to retrieve responses. These data indicate that differences in the dynamics of retrieval for practice tests versus delayed JOLs are responsible for the paradox.

Influence of cue word perceptual information on metamemory accuracy in judgement of learning

Previous studies have suggested that perceptual information regarding to-be-remembered words in the study phase affects the accuracy of judgement of learning (JOL). However, few have investigated whether the perceptual information in the JOL phase influences JOL accuracy. This study examined the influence of cue word perceptual information in the JOL phase on immediate and delayed JOL accuracy through changes in cue word font size. In Experiment 1, large-cue word pairs had significantly higher mean JOL magnitude than small-cue word pairs in immediate JOLs and higher relative accuracy than small-cue pairs in delayed JOLs, but font size had no influence on recall performance. Experiment 2 increased the JOL time, and mean JOL magnitude did not reliably differ for large-cue compared with small-cue pairs in immediate JOLs. However, the influence on relative accuracy still existed in delayed JOLs. Experiment 3 increased the familiarity of small-cue words in the delayed JOL phase by adding a lexical decision task. The results indicated that cue word font size no longer affected relative accuracy in delayed JOLs. The three experiments in our study indicated that the perceptual information regarding cue words in the JOL phase affects immediate and delayed JOLs in different ways.