Delayed Predictive Accuracy of Narrative Recall After Traumatic Brain Injury

Abstract

Fifteen adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and 15 adults without brain injury listened to narratives, made delayed predictions of recall, and took a delayed recall test. Narrative questions differed by salience (main ideas, details) and explicitness (implied, stated) (R. H. Brookshire & L. E. Nicholas, 1993). TBI survivors recalled less than control participants regardless of question type. All participants recalled main ideas and implied information with greater accuracy than details and stated information. Predictive accuracy for recalling stated information was strong regardless of group. Participants were unable to predict recall for implied information. The materials-appropriate-processing (MAP) hypothesis proposes that predictive accuracy is biased by text type (i.e., predictive accuracy for recalling main ideas should be higher than for details when learning narratives). However, there were no differences in predictive accuracy for recalling main ideas and details, with both groups predicting recall modestly well. Controlling for explicitness appears to be an important variable for future metamemory text studies.

Self-awareness and traumatic brain injury outcome

“…a score of 0 on anticipatory awareness and self-regulation measures). This finding is consistent with previous literature, which has found that cognitively healthy adults do not always accurately predict performances on neurocognitive tests [47,48,49,50]. Thus, it may be that healthy adults are not able to accurately predict performance, but because they have other intact cognitive abilities, this does not significantly impact their daily functioning.…”

Assessment of memory self-awareness following traumatic brain injury

“…This finding is consistent with other studies that have used online methodologies to investigate memory self-awareness in individuals with TBI that were both less than [5] and greater than 1 year post-injury [14,15,44,45]. It has, however, been hypothesized that online assessment procedures may measure different aspects of memory self-awareness than offline self-report methods [46] and/or rely on different cognitive processes [47].…”

What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses

“…According to the transfer-appropriatemonitoring (TAM) hypothesis, the accuracy of people's judgments of memory are a direct function of the match between the properties of the judgment context and properties of the test context (e.g., Begg, Duft, Lalonde, Melnick, & Sanvito, 1989;Dunlosky & Nelson, 1997;Glenberg, Sanocki, Epstein, & Morris, 1987;Kennedy & Nawrocki, 2003;Maki & Serra, 1992;Weaver & Kelemen, 2003). The relevant properties diVer somewhat across speciWc variants of the TAM hypothesis.…”