Judgments of learning reactively facilitate visual memory by enhancing learning engagement

Shi, Aike; Zhao, Wenbo; Shanks, David R.; Hu, Xiao; Yang, Chunliang

doi:10.3758/s13423-022-02174-1

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current study is the first to explore neural features associated with the effect. The behavioral results successfully replicated the positive reactivity effect on word list learning (Li et al 2022(Li et al , 2023Shi et al 2023;Yang et al 2015;Zechmeister and Shaughnessy 1980;Zhao et al 2022). More importantly, the EEG results demonstrated that making JOLs increased the ERP amplitudes of P200 and LPC and decreased stimulus-induced alpha and beta power (larger ERDs).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

“…Specifically, to make a JOL, participants need to look for some cues to inform JOL formation (e.g., Koriat 1997;Rhodes 2016;Yang et al 2017). During the process of word encoding, making JOLs increases the metacognitive monitoring process (Lei et al 2020) and thus enhances learning engagement (Shi et al 2023). Additionally, searching for cues to inform JOL formation also enhances item-specific processing (Chang and Brainerd 2024;Senkova and Otani 2021;Zhao et al 2023aZhao et al , 2023b, thus producing more elaborative processing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Judgments of Learning Reactively Improve Memory by Enhancing Learning Engagement and Inducing Elaborative Processing: Evidence from an EEG Study

Li,

Pastötter,

Zhong

et al. 2024

J. Intell.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judgments of Learning Reactively Improve Memory by Enhancing Learning Engagement and Inducing Elaborative Processing: Evidence from an EEG Study

Li,

Pastötter,

Zhong

et al. 2024

J. Intell.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Multiple theoretical hypotheses have been proposed to explain JOL reactivity, such as the changed-goal hypothesis (Mitchum et al 2016), the cue-strengthening hypothesis (Soderstrom et al 2015), the item-specific processing hypothesis (Senkova and Otani 2021), and the attention-reorienting/enhanced engagement account (Shi et al 2023;Tauber and Witherby 2019). As background, we provide a summary of these hypotheses in Table 1 and direct readers to other relevant studies that provide support for each theory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Making JOLs enhances the attention to the study items and increases learners' engagement in processing the items. (Shi et al 2023;Tauber and Witherby 2019;Murphy et al 2023) In the current study, we focus on the item-specific processing hypothesis, which evolved from the item-and-relational-processing framework (Einstein and Hunt 1980;Hunt and Einstein 1981). According to this framework, there are two distinct types of processing in list encoding.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judgments of Learning Reactivity on Item-Specific and Relational Processing

Chang,

Brainerd

2024

J. Intell.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…In the current investigation, we focus on the reactive effect of making immediate JOLs on memory performance. Such JOL reactivity has been investigated for a variety of materials, including single words (e.g., Begg et al 1989 ; Halamish 2018 ; Li et al 2022 ; Senkova and Otani 2021 ; Tauber and Rhodes 2012 ; Tekin and Roediger 2020 ; Yang et al 2015 ; Zechmeister and Shaughnessy 1980 ; Zhao et al 2022 ), word pairs (e.g., Arbuckle and Cuddy 1969 ; Chang and Brainerd 2023 ; DeYoung and Serra 2021 ; Dougherty et al 2005 , 2018 ; Halamish and Undorf 2022 ; Janes et al 2018 ; Kelemen and Weaver 1997 ; Maxwell and Huff 2022a , 2022b ; Mitchum et al 2016 ; Myers et al 2020 ; Rivers et al 2021 , 2023 ; Soderstrom et al 2015 ; Tauber and Witherby 2019 ; Witherby and Tauber 2017 ; Zhao et al 2023 ), pictures (e.g., Shi et al 2022 ; Sommer et al 1995 ), general knowledge facts (e.g., Schäfer and Undorf 2023 ), and educational texts (e.g., Ariel et al 2021 ; Dobson et al 2019 ; Ha and Lee 2023 ). This research has typically revealed a memory benefit (i.e., positive reactivity) for cued recall of pairs with a semantic relationship (e.g., coat – jacket ), positive reactivity for recognition of single words or pictures, no recall benefit for cued recall of unrelated word pairs (e.g., dog – spoon ), and mixed results for educational material.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Role of Attentional Reorienting in the Reactive Effects of Judgments of Learning on Memory Performance

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Judgments of learning reactively facilitate visual memory by enhancing learning engagement

Cited by 20 publications

References 30 publications

Judgments of Learning Reactively Improve Memory by Enhancing Learning Engagement and Inducing Elaborative Processing: Evidence from an EEG Study

Judgments of Learning Reactively Improve Memory by Enhancing Learning Engagement and Inducing Elaborative Processing: Evidence from an EEG Study

Judgments of Learning Reactivity on Item-Specific and Relational Processing

Exploring the Role of Attentional Reorienting in the Reactive Effects of Judgments of Learning on Memory Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About