Investigating memory reactivity with a within-participant manipulation of judgments of learning: support for the cue-strengthening hypothesis

Judgments of Learning Reactively Improve Memory by Enhancing Learning Engagement and Inducing Elaborative Processing: Evidence from an EEG Study

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) can reactively alter memory itself, a phenomenon termed the reactivity effect. The current study recorded electroencephalography (EEG) signals during the encoding phase of a word list learning task to explore the neurocognitive features associated with JOL reactivity. The behavioral results show that making JOLs reactively enhances recognition performance. The EEG results reveal that, compared with not making JOLs, making JOLs increases P200 and LPC amplitudes and decreases alpha and beta power. Additionally, the signals of event-related potentials (ERPs) and event-related desynchronizations (ERDs) partially mediate the reactivity effect. These findings support the enhanced learning engagement theory and the elaborative processing explanation to account for the JOL reactivity effect.

Item-specific and relational encoding are effective at reducing the illusion of competence

Metamemory, or the ability to understand the capacities of one's own memory, is important for learning. To investigate questions surrounding metamemory, researchers commonly have participants make judgments of learning (JOLs) at encoding, in which participants rate their likelihood of recalling the target in a cue-target word pair when shown only the cue at test. However, the associative direction of cue-target pairs can affect the calibration of JOLs. Unlike forward associates (e.g., credit-card), in which JOLs often accurately predict recall, an illusion of competence has been reported for backward associates (e.g., card-credit), symmetrical associates (e.g., salt-pepper), and unrelated cue-target pairs (e.g., artery-bronze) such that JOLs overestimate later recall. The present study evaluates whether the illusion of competence can be reduced when participants apply deep item-specific or relational encoding tasks relative to silent reading. Across two experiments, we show that both item-specific and relational encoding strategies reduce the illusion of competence for backward associates and unrelated pairs while improving the calibration between JOLs and recall. Our findings suggest that these encoding strategies are effective at reducing the illusion of competence, with increased calibration primarily reflecting improved recall. Thus, item-specific and relational encoding strategies primarily affect retrieval processes rather than metacognitive processes that participants engage in at encoding.

Judgments of Learning Reactivity on Item-Specific and Relational Processing

Judgments of learning (JOLs) reactivity refers to the finding that the mere solicitation of JOLs modifies subsequent memory performance. One theoretical explanation is the item-specific processing hypothesis, which posits that item-level JOLs redound to the benefit of later memory performance because they enhance item-specific processing. The current study was designed to test this account. We factorially manipulated the organization (blocked vs. randomized) of categorized lists and JOL condition (item-JOLs, list-JOLs, no-JOLs) between participants, and fit the dual-retrieval model to free recall data to pinpoint the underlying memory processes that were affected by JOL solicitation. Our results showed that item-level JOLs produced positive reactivity for randomized but not for blocked categorized lists. Moreover, we found that the positive JOL reactivity for randomized categorized lists was tied to a familiarity judgment process that is associated with gist processing, rather than to item-specific recollective processes. Thus, our results pose a challenge to the item-specific processing explanation of JOL reactivity. We argue that JOL reactivity is not restricted to item-specific processing; instead, whether JOLs predominantly engage participants with item-specific or relational processing depends on the interaction between learning stimuli and JOLs.

Do Judgments of Learning Impair Recall When Uninformative Cues Are Salient?

Judgments of learning (JOL) are one of the most commonly used measures of metamemory. There is mixed evidence that eliciting JOLs while participants are studying word pairs influences their subsequent recall, a phenomenon known as reactivity. The majority of studies have found that positive reactivity occurs when word pairs are related. This finding suggests that when the final test is sensitive to the cues used to make a JOL (e.g., pair relatedness), a benefit to recall is observed. Here, in three experiments, JOL reactivity is examined in the presence of a salient, yet non-diagnostic cue-font size. The results show that when study time is limited and font size is made salient, eliciting JOLs impairs future recall. It is argued that JOLs prompt participants to evaluate salient cues in the learning environment to evaluate whether they will affect future recall. This increased processing of salient cues can impair recall if it comes at the expense of processing less salient but more informative cues. These findings suggest that the relevance to the test of the cues processed when JOLs are performed determines the direction of reactivity effects, with both positive and negative reactivity being possible depending on how diagnostic the salient metacognitive cues are for recall.

Judgments of learning enhance recall for category-cued but not letter-cued items

Making immediate judgments of learning (JOLs) during study can influence later memory performance, with a common outcome being that JOLs improve cued-recall performance for related word pairs (i.e., positive reactivity) and do not impact memory for unrelated pairs (i.e., no reactivity). The cue-strengthening hypothesis proposes that JOL reactivity will be observed when a criterion test is sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Soderstrom et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41 (2), 553-558, 2015). Across four experiments, we evaluated this hypothesis with category pairs (e.g., A type of gem - Jade) and letter pairs (e.g., Ja - Jade). Participants studied a list comprised of both pair types, made (or did not make) JOLs, and completed a cued-recall test (Experiments 1a/b). The cue-strengthening hypothesis predicts greater positive reactivity for category pairs than for letter pairs, because making a JOL strengthens the relationship between the cue and target, which is more beneficial for material with an a priori semantic relationship. Outcomes were consistent with this hypothesis. We also evaluated and ruled out alternative explanations for this pattern of effects: (a) that they arose due to overall differences in recall performance for the two pair types (Experiment 2); (b) that they would also occur even when the criterion test is not sensitive to the cues used to inform JOLs (Experiment 3); and (c) that JOLs only increased memory strength for the targets (Experiment 4). Thus, the current experiments rule out plausible accounts of reactivity effects and provide further, converging evidence for the cue-strengthening hypothesis.

Exploring the Role of Attentional Reorienting in the Reactive Effects of Judgments of Learning on Memory Performance

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying related word pairs can enhance performance on tests that rely on cue-target associations (e.g., cued recall) compared to studying alone. One possible explanation for this positive JOL reactivity effect is that the prompt to make JOLs, which typically occurs halfway through the presentation of each pair, may encourage learners to devote more attention to the pair during the second half of the encoding episode, which may contribute to enhanced recall performance. To investigate this idea, an online sample of participants (Experiment 1) and undergraduate students (Experiment 2) studied a set of moderately related word pairs (e.g., dairy-cow) in preparation for a cued recall test. Some participants made JOLs for each pair halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants did not. Also, some participants were presented with a fixation point halfway through the presentation, whereas other participants were not. The goal of this fixation point was to simulate the possible "reorienting" effect of a JOL prompt halfway through each encoding episode. In both an unsupervised online context and a supervised laboratory context, cued recall performance was higher for participants who made JOLs compared to those who did not make JOLs. However, presenting a fixation point halfway through the presentation of each pair did not lead to reactive effects on memory. Thus, JOLs are more effective than a manipulation that reoriented participants to the word pairs in another way (i.e., via a fixation point), which provides some initial evidence that positive reactivity for related pairs is not solely driven by attentional reorienting during encoding.

Does the reactivity effect of judgments of learning transfer to learning of new information?

ABSTRACTMaking judgments of learning (JOLs) can reactively change memory, a phenomenon termed the reactivity effect. The current study was designed to explore whether the reactivity effect transfers to subsequent learning of new information. Participants studied two blocks of words (Experiment 1) or related word pairs (Experiments 2 & 3). In Block 1, participants in the experimental (JOL) group made a JOL while studying each item, whereas the control (no-JOL) group did not make item-by-item JOLs. Then both groups studied Block 2, in which they did not make JOLs, and finally, they took a test on Blocks 1 and 2. Across Experiments 1 -3, the results showed superior Block 1 test performance in the JOL than in the no-JOL group, demonstrating a positive reactivity effect. Critically, there was minimal difference in Block 2 test performance between the two groups, implying little transfer of the positive reactivity effect to subsequent learning of new information. Furthermore, Experiment 3 demonstrated that the reactivity effect still failed to transfer even when participants explicitly appreciated the benefits of making JOLs. Educational implications are discussed.

Does Interactive Imagery Influence the Reactive Effect of Judgments of Learning on Memory?

Making judgments of learning (JOLs) while studying is a useful tool for students to evaluate the status of their learning. Additionally, in associative learning contexts, JOLs can directly benefit learning when the to-be-learned information is related. One explanation for this reactive effect is that making JOLs strengthens the associative relationship, leading to enhanced memory performance when a test relies on that relationship (e.g., cued-recall tests). In the present research, we evaluated whether having students make interactive mental images-another strategy that can increase the strength of a cue-target relationship-impacts the reactive effect of JOLs on learning. Students studied word pairs that were related and unrelated. Half of the students were instructed to form a mental image of the words interacting, whereas the other half were not. Additionally, in each group half of the students made a JOL for each pair, whereas half did not. Following a short delay, students completed a cued-recall test. Consistent with prior research, students who made JOLs remembered more related word pairs than did students who did not. By contrast, students who made JOLs recalled fewer unrelated word pairs than did students who did not. Moreover, although students who formed interactive images demonstrated enhanced memory relative to students who did not, interactive imagery did not impact the reactive effect of JOLs. These outcomes are informative for existing theory of JOL reactivity. Specifically, JOLs may only benefit learning of associative information when it has a pre-existing semantic relationship (e.g., related word pairs) and not when that that relationship is created by the learner (e.g., by forming interactive images).

Is discriminability a requirement for reactivity? Comparing the effects of mixed vs. pure list presentations on judgment of learning reactivity

Providing judgments of learning (JOLs) at study tends to produce reactive effects on recall of cue-target word pairs. This reactivity generally produces memory improvements (i.e., positive reactivity) but only for related word pairs. For unrelated pairs, reactivity is typically not observed. Researchers have primarily investigated reactivity using study lists that contain at least two distinct pair types (i.e., related vs. unrelated pairs). Using these mixed lists, reactivity may occur because participants use distinguishing pair characteristics to inform their study goals (i.e., prioritizing related vs. unrelated pairs). The present study examined whether detection of separate pair types within mixed lists is a requisite for reactivity to occur. Experiment 1 replicated previous work showing that in mixed lists, JOLs produced positive reactivity on related pairs but are nonreactive on unrelated pairs. Importantly, Experiment 1 also found that these patterns extended to pure lists, in which only one pair type is presented. Experiments 2 and 3 then extended these patterns to backward and symmetrical paired associates. Finally, across experiments, reactivity patterns reported for JOLs extended to frequency of co-occurrence judgments across pair and list types. Our findings that reactivity patterns consistently emerge using pure lists supports a cue-strengthening account of reactivity.