Literature DB >> 18763893

Familiarity and retrieval processes in delayed judgments of learning.

Janet Metcalfe1, Bridgid Finn.   

Abstract

Two processes are postulated to underlie delayed judgments of learning (JOLs)--cue familiarity and target retrievability. The two processes are distinguishable because the familiarity-based judgments are thought to be faster than the retrieval-based processes, because only retrieval-based JOLs should enhance the relative accuracy of the correlations between the JOLs and criterion test performance, and because only retrieval-based judgments should enhance memory. To test these predictions, in three experiments, the authors either speeded people's JOLs or allowed them to be unspeeded. The relative accuracy of the JOLs in predicting performance on the criterion test was higher for the unspeeded JOLs than for the speeded JOLs, as predicted. The unspeeded JOL conditions showed enhanced memory as compared with the speeded JOL conditions, as predicted. Finally, the unspeeded JOLs were sensitive to manipulations that modified recallability of the target, whereas the speeded JOLs were selectively sensitive to experimental variations in the familiarity of the cues. Thus, all three of the predictions about the consequences of the two processes potentially underlying delayed JOLs were borne out. A model of the processes underlying delayed JOLs based on these and earlier results is presented. (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18763893      PMCID: PMC2593741          DOI: 10.1037/a0012580

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  22 in total

1.  A Stochastic Version of General Recognition Theory.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Math Psychol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.223

2.  Is temporal spacing of tests helpful even when it inflates error rates?

Authors:  Harold Pashler; Gregory Zarow; Baylor Triplett
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  Delaying judgments of learning affects memory, not metamemory.

Authors:  Daniel R Kimball; Janet Metcalfe
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-09

4.  A revised methodology for research on metamemory: Pre-judgment Recall and Monitoring (PRAM).

Authors:  Thomas O Nelson; Louis Narens; John Dunlosky
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2004-03

5.  Illusions of competence in monitoring one's knowledge during study.

Authors:  Asher Koriat; Robert A Bjork
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Recognition memory and introspective remember/know judgments: evidence for the influence of distractor plausibility on "remembering" and a caution about purportedly nonparametric measures.

Authors:  Aaron S Benjamin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2005-03

7.  Judgments of learning: evidence for a two-stage process.

Authors:  Lisa K Son; Janet Metcalfe
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2005-09

8.  Enhanced metamemory at delays: why do judgments of learning improve over time?

Authors:  W L Kelemen; C A Weaver
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Altering memory through recall: the effects of cue-guided retrieval processing.

Authors:  M A McDaniel; M D Kowitz; P K Dunay
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1989-07

10.  The mismeasure of memory: when retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index.

Authors:  A S Benjamin; R A Bjork; B L Schwartz
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1998-03
View more
  15 in total

1.  How crucial is the response format for the testing effect?

Authors:  Fredrik U Jönsson; Veit Kubik; Max Larsson Sundqvist; Ivo Todorov; Bert Jonsson
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2013-10-31

2.  Predicting memory performance under conditions of proactive interference: immediate and delayed judgments of learning.

Authors:  Christopher N Wahlheim
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2011-07

3.  People's study time allocation and its relation to animal foraging.

Authors:  Janet Metcalfe; W Jake Jacobs
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2009-12-21       Impact factor: 1.777

4.  Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning.

Authors:  Monika Undorf; Anke Söllner; Arndt Bröder
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-05

5.  The sensitivity of judgment-of-learning resolution to past test performance, new learning, and forgetting.

Authors:  Robert Ariel; John Dunlosky
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2011-01

6.  Neural correlates of people's hypercorrection of their false beliefs.

Authors:  Janet Metcalfe; Brady Butterfield; Christian Habeck; Yaakov Stern
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  The hypercorrection effect in younger and older adults.

Authors:  Teal S Eich; Yaakov Stern; Janet Metcalfe
Journal:  Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn       Date:  2012-12-14

8.  Fast mapping in healthy young adults: the influence of metamemory.

Authors:  Vijayachandra Ramachandra; Bryna Rickenbach; Marissa Ruda; Bethanie Lecureux; Moira Pope
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2010-06

9.  Judgements of effort as a function of post-trial versus post-task elicitation.

Authors:  Michelle Ashburner; Evan F Risko
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2021-03-27       Impact factor: 2.143

10.  Monitoring the mind: the neurocognitive correlates of metamemory.

Authors:  Anne T A Do Lam; Nikolai Axmacher; Juergen Fell; Bernhard P Staresina; Siegfried Gauggel; Tobias Wagner; Jan Olligs; Susanne Weis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.