Judgments of learning reactively facilitate visual memory by enhancing learning engagement

Confidence ratings increase response thresholds in decision making

Many mental processes are reactive - they are altered as a result of introspection and monitoring. It has been documented that soliciting trial-by-trial confidence ratings (CRs) reactively improves decision accuracy and lengthens response times (RTs), but the cognitive mechanisms underlying CR reactivity in decision-making remain unknown. The current study conducted two experiments and employed the drift-diffusion model (DDM) to explore why reporting confidence reactively alters the decision-making process. The results showed that CRs led to enhanced decision accuracy, longer RTs, and higher response thresholds. The findings are consistent with an increased conservatism hypothesis which asserts that soliciting CRs provokes feelings of uncertainty and makes individuals more cautious in their decision making.

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.

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.

Judgments of Learning Following Retrieval Practice Produce Minimal Reactivity Effect on Learning of Education-Related Materials

Testing (i.e., retrieval practice) is one of the most powerful strategies to boost learning. A recent study observed an incidental finding that making judgments of learning (JOLs) following retrieval practice further enhanced learning of education-related texts to a medium extent (Cohen's d = 0.44) by comparison with retrieval practice itself, suggesting that making JOLs may serve as an easy-to-implement educational intervention to improve the benefits of testing. Three experiments (one pre-registered) were conducted to test the replicability of Ariel et al.'s incidental finding and to further determine whether making JOLs following retrieval practice reactively enhances the benefits of testing for text learning. The three experiments consistently provided Bayesian evidence supporting no reactivity effect of JOLs following retrieval practice, regardless of whether the replication experiments were conducted in a laboratory (Experiment 1) or online (Experiments 2 and 3), whether the stimuli were presented in the same language (Experiments 2 and 3) or not (Experiment 1), and whether participants were recruited from the sample pool (Experiment 2) or not (Experiments 1 and 3) as in the original study. These null findings imply that making JOLs cannot be utilized as a practical strategy to enhance the benefits of testing for learning of educationally related materials. Possible explanations for the null reactivity effect of JOLs following retrieval practice are discussed.

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 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).