Predicting as a learning strategy

Brod, Garvin

doi:10.3758/s13423-021-01904-1

Cited by 40 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evidence for the error-correction hypothesis in this pretesting paradigm is not compelling. However, it has been argued that having confidence in one's response is necessary to observe surprise-based prediction errors and the subsequent beneficial effects on learning (Brod, 2021). Thus, the error-correction theory may well find support in paradigms that require participants to make informed predictions (e.g., answering familiar trivia questions) rather than guesses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the pretesting paradigm, participants may not have much confidence in their guesses, and therefore may not be surprised to learn that their guesses were wrong. This low level of confidence and surprise may reduce the likelihood of an error-correction mechanism being triggered, especially when compared to other paradigms in which the participants generate informed predictions (see Brod, 2021). Indeed, the participants may even be more surprised if they generate a guess that is close to the true answer in the pretesting paradigm (i.e., the perception of a near miss).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Guessing the definition of a cue word before reading the true definition improved performance on a subsequent target multiple-choice test (relative to just studying the definitions). The cues were novel when presented at encoding, and so participants' responses were likely to be "pure" guesses, rather than informed predictions (see Brod, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The benefits of impossible tests: Assessing the role of error-correction in the pretesting effect

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relative to studying alone, guessing the meanings of unknown words can improve later recognition of their meanings, even if those guesses were incorrect – the pretesting effect (PTE). The error-correction hypothesis suggests that incorrect guesses produce error signals that promote memory for the meanings when they are revealed. The current research sought to test the error-correction explanation of the PTE. In three experiments, participants studied unfamiliar Finnish-English word pairs by either studying each complete pair or by guessing the English translation before its presentation. In the latter case, the participants also guessed which of two categories the word belonged to. Hence, guesses from the correct category were semantically closer to the true translation than guesses from the incorrect category. In Experiment 1, guessing increased subsequent recognition of the English translations, especially for translations that were presented on trials in which the participants’ guesses were from the correct category. Experiment 2 replicated these target recognition effects while also demonstrating that they do not extend to associative recognition performance. Experiment 3 again replicated the target recognition pattern, while also examining participants’ metacognitive recognition judgments. Participants correctly judged that their memory would be better after small than after large errors, but incorrectly believed that making any errors would be detrimental, relative to study-only. Overall, the data are inconsistent with the error-correction hypothesis; small, within-category errors produced better recognition than large, cross-category errors. Alternative theories, based on elaborative encoding and motivated learning, are considered.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The benefits of impossible tests: Assessing the role of error-correction in the pretesting effect

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The encoding setup of Experiments 2A and 2B minimized the need for explicit prediction by requiring a categorization (rather than a prediction) task. Indeed, recent findings on the effect of PE on pupil dilation and in relation to memory have showed that explicitly requiring a predictive response at encoding can be crucial to measure predictionrelated effects on memory performance (Brod et al, 2018;Brod, 2021a). The lack of a PEmediated effect on episodic memory in the absence of an explicit prediction task challenges the automaticity of the predictive processing mode, particularly concerning its long-term memory consequences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We speculate on this distinction based on the similarities between our encoding tasks and those in Brod et al (see also, (Brod, 2021b;Simonsmeier et al, 2021)). More specifically, with almost identical setups, prediction and post-diction mainly differ by the fact that prediction prompts the pre-activation of a representation that can be contrasted directly against the incoming stimulus while post-diction does not (since this contrasting can only happen after the stimulus onset; (Brod, 2021a)). In other words, the pre-activation of a specific representation based on prior knowledge or memory is the necessary condition for PE to arise.…”

Section: Predictions and Predictive Effects On Memory: Automatic Or Task Dependent?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Not what U expect: Effects of Prediction Errors on Episodic Memory.

Ortiz-Tudela¹,

Nolden²,

Pupillo³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The characterization of the relationship between predictions and one-shot episodic encoding poses an important challenge for memory research. On the one hand, events that are compatible with our previous knowledge are thought to be remembered better than incompatible ones. On the other hand, unexpected situations, by virtue of their surprise, are known to cause enhanced learning. Several theoretical accounts try to solve this apparent paradox by conceptualizing prediction error (PE) as a continuum ranging from low PE (for expectation matching events) to high PE (for expectation mismatching ones). Under such framework, the relationship between PE and memory encoding would be described by a U-shape function with higher memory performance for extreme levels of PE and lower memory for middle levels of PE. In this study we used a gradual manipulation of the strength of association between scenes and objects to render different levels of PE and then tested for episodic memory of the (mis)matching events. In two experiments, and in contrast to what was anticipated, recognition memory as a function of PE followed an inverted U-shape, with higher performance for intermediate levels of PE. Furthermore, in two additional experiments we showed the relevance of explicit predictions at encoding to reveal such inverted U pattern, thus providing the boundary conditions of the effect. We discuss our current findings in the light of the uncertainty in the environment and the importance of the operations underlying encoding tasks.

show abstract

Prequestioning and Pretesting Effects: a Review of Empirical Research, Theoretical Perspectives, and Implications for Educational Practice

Pan,

Carpenter

2023

Educ Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Testing students on information that they do not know might seem like a fruitless endeavor. After all, why give anyone a test that they are guaranteed to fail because they have not yet learned the material? Remarkably, a growing body of research indicates that such testing—formally known as prequestioning or pretesting—can benefit learning if there is an opportunity to study the correct answers afterwards. This prequestioning effect or pretesting effect has been successfully demonstrated with a variety of learning materials, despite many erroneous responses being generated on initial tests, and in conjunction with text materials, videos, lectures, and/or correct answer feedback. In this review, we summarize the emerging evidence for prequestioning and pretesting effects on memory and transfer of learning. Uses of pre-instruction testing in the classroom, theoretical explanations, and other considerations are addressed. The evidence to date indicates that prequestioning and pretesting can often enhance learning, but the extent of that enhancement may vary due to differences in procedure or how learning is assessed. The underlying cognitive mechanisms, which can be represented by a three-stage framework, appear to involve test-induced changes in subsequent learning behaviors and possibly other processes. Further research is needed to clarify moderating factors, theoretical issues, and best practices for educational applications.

show abstract

Predicting as a learning strategy

Cited by 40 publications

References 59 publications

The benefits of impossible tests: Assessing the role of error-correction in the pretesting effect

The benefits of impossible tests: Assessing the role of error-correction in the pretesting effect

Not what U expect: Effects of Prediction Errors on Episodic Memory.

Prequestioning and Pretesting Effects: a Review of Empirical Research, Theoretical Perspectives, and Implications for Educational Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About