I remember it now, so I'll remember it later: Working Memory Representations Guide Inaccurate Predictions of Future Memory Performance

Abstract

Making accurate predictions of future memory performance (Judgements of Learning; JOLs) is a prerequisite for efficient learning. Since decades, those JOLs are assumed to be made inferentially, based on cues. This cue-utilization approach substituted the idea that JOLs are directly linked to memory quality. We criticize the reasons for the rejection of this memory-strength hypothesis because they ignore the existence of two different memory systems: working memory which holds representations immediately accessible, and long-term memory which is a more permanent store. Considering both memory systems, the current work revisited the memory-strength hypothesis: In Experiment 1, participants memorized sequences of two or four colored objects, then they provided JOLs for a long-term memory test, and performed a working memory test on the objects’ colors. After learning 200 objects, the long-term memory test on all studied objects followed. Sequence-length affected working memory, but not long-term memory performance. JOLs, however, were higher for sequences of two than four and correlated higher with working memory than long-term memory performance. Experiment 2 replicated the sequence-length effect on JOLs in the absence of a working memory test. Results of a sequence-eight condition revealed an increase in JOLs’ accuracy when the number of studied objects exceeded working memory span. Contrary to predominant theories, our findings suggest that JOLs are based on the quality of memory representations.

Delayed memory for complex visual stimuli does not benefit from distraction during encoding.

“…Evidence for that prediction so far is mixed: some studies showed that increasing WM load translated into weaker LTM for the same material (Forsberg et al, 2020;Fukuda & Vogel, 2019). Others found no effect of increasing WM load on LTM performance (Bartsch et al, 2019;Krasnoff & Souza, 2021). With Experiment 3 we add to the latter part of the literaturehere WM load at encoding did not affect delayed memory.…”

“…There are potentially importantyet not systematicdifferences between these studies, including the mode of presentation (simultaneous vs. sequential), the domain of memory material (visual vs. verbal); and the memory demand of the test: Bartsch et al (2019) tested memory for relations between words; Krasnoff and Souza (2021) tested continuous reproduction of color-object conjunctions, and both studies tested all word pairs in the WM test. Fukuda and Vogel (2019) as well as Forsberg et al (2020) tested item recognition, and only tested a single item in each WM trial.…”