Is this going to be on the test? Test expectancy moderates the disfluency effect with sans forgetica.

Geller, Jason; Peterson, Daniel J.

doi:10.1037/xlm0001042

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The marginally significant difference in the first block and no reliable difference in the remaining two blocks could be interpreted as due to the moderating effect of test expectancy found in Geller and Peterson [24]. In that study, the high test expectancy was set by the instructions: "your memory will be tested for words in different typefaces" while low test expectancy was set by instructions: "you will be reading words in different typefaces".…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…When performance across the three blocks was averaged, there was a significant difference in hit rate but when blocks were analyzed individually, only the first block had a difference with marginal significance. One possible explanation for this is that there was less test expectancy in the first block than the remaining two blocks and test expectancy has been identified as a moderator of the SF effect on studied words [24]. Experiment 2 had some surprising results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…These studies compare performance between SF and a fluent font, typically Arial, sometimes Times New Roman (e.g., [23]). SF seems to benefit recognition (greater sensitivity d') of studied words ( [24] Experiment 1-only when a test was not expected) but there are also mixed findings [25] and null results [26]. There are mixed results for recall of studied words ( [27]-no benefit on free-recall of studied words from flashcards; [24] Experiment 2-benefit to cued-recall when test was not expected).…”

Section: Existing Research On Sfmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Recognition of Studied Words in Perceptual Disfluent Sans Forgetica Font

Cui

Liu

2022

Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The new Sans Forgetica (SF) typeface creates perceptual disfluency by breaking up parts of letters vertically, horizontally, or diagonally, thereby fragmentizing them. While patterns of fragmentization are consistent for each unique letter, they are not uniform across letters. With Gestalt principles such as good continuation and perceptual completion being more difficult to implement in these settings, viewers may need to depend on context clues to identify words. This may be a desirable difficulty and improve memory for those words. Here, we investigate whether SF improves recognition of studied words. In Experiment 1, participants studied words in Arial and SF and completed old-new recognition tests where words retained their study fonts. In Experiment 2, we investigated the potential for context reinstatement—testing studied words in their studied fonts or the other font. Hit rate and discrimination sensitivities (d’) were analyzed for both experiments. Participants had significantly better recognition (hit rate) in SF than in Arial (Exp 1) and significantly higher discrimination sensitivities (d’) when words were tested in SF than in Arial (Exp 2). However, further examination of these results (e.g., marginally more response bias with SF than with Arial in Exp 1) lead us to hold reservations for the benefit of SF on word memory and conjecture that SF, at best, plays a limited role in improving recognition of studied words.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Existing Research On Sfmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recognition of Studied Words in Perceptual Disfluent Sans Forgetica Font

Cui

Liu

2022

Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And Eskenazi and Nix (2021) found that Sans Forgetica improved memory for the spelling of obscure words (e.g., abrogate, otiose), but only for high-skill spellers. In terms of its metacognitive effects, Sans Forgetica was judged as more difficult to read than Arial font in Taylor et al (2020), and it yielded lower judgments of learning in Geller and Peterson (in press; but not in Geller et al, 2020 or Taylor et al, 2020).…”

Section: Effects Of Reading Aloudmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…More recently, Sans Forgetica has been found to be helpful under some conditions. Geller and Peterson, in press) found improved recognition, but only when participants were not expecting a memory test. And Eskenazi and Nix (2021) found that Sans Forgetica improved memory for the spelling of obscure words (e.g., abrogate, otiose), but only for high-skill spellers.…”

Section: Effects Of Reading Aloudmentioning

confidence: 98%

Reading aloud improves proofreading (but using Sans Forgetica font does not).

Cushing¹,

Bodner²

2022

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proofreading is an important cognitive skill, yet methods for enhancing error detection have received little research attention. We report two experiments comparing the efficacy of proofreading aloud (i.e., "production")-a common proofreading tip-versus in a disfluent font (Sans Forgetica) purported to introduce a desirable difficulty. Participants read eight short texts silently, eight aloud, and eight in the disfluent font-and recorded the noncontextual errors (i.e., typos) and contextual errors (i.e., grammar, word choice) that they detected. Relative to silent reading, proofreading aloud improved detection of both types of errors, whereas the disfluent font impaired detection of noncontextual errors and did not aid detection of contextual errors. Metacognitively, participants did not expect the benefit of reading aloud, whereas they expected the disfluent font to impair proofreading. Proofreading aloud works, and invites further research on how it works, whereas there was no indication that proofreading in a disfluent font is useful.

show abstract

Flickering presentations do affect the judgment of learning but not the learning outcome

Ebersbach,

Guschlbauer,

Rummer

2023

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined whether visual disfluency, as elicited by presenting text on flickering slides, affects learning positively and the global judgment of learning (JOL) negatively. Participants (N = 202 in Experiment 1, between‐subjects design; N = 53 in Experiment 2, within‐subjects design) saw in an online session multiple slides including textual information that they had to learn. The slides were presented either fluently or disfluently, that is, interrupted by rapid presentations of black slides, evoking a flickering effect. Thus, instead of manipulating the textual material (e.g., by using different fonts), as most studies on the disfluency effect so far did, we manipulated the characteristics of the presentation (i.e., flickering vs. nonflickering). In both experiments, JOL was lower in the flickering than in the nonflickering condition. However, flickering slides did not lead to a better memory performance. The results provide further evidence for the assumption that a beneficial disfluency effect is questionable.

show abstract

Is this going to be on the test? Test expectancy moderates the disfluency effect with sans forgetica.

Cited by 8 publications

References 64 publications

Recognition of Studied Words in Perceptual Disfluent Sans Forgetica Font

Recognition of Studied Words in Perceptual Disfluent Sans Forgetica Font

Reading aloud improves proofreading (but using Sans Forgetica font does not).

Flickering presentations do affect the judgment of learning but not the learning outcome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About