Self-regulated learning of important information under sequential and simultaneous encoding conditions.

Middlebrooks, Catherine D.; Castel, Alan D.

doi:10.1037/xlm0000480

Cited by 23 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants may be more selective under conditions that tax attentional resources less (i.e., simultaneous presentation, full attention) than those that may have a greater strain on attentional resources (i.e., sequential presentation, divided attention), consistent with prior findings (Ariel et al, 2009; Dunlosky, Ariel, & Thiede, 2011; Dunlosky & Thiede, 2004; Middlebrooks & Castel, 2017; Robison & Unsworth, 2017; Siegel & Castel, 2018). It may also be the case that the combination of these factors produces compounded effects.…”

Section: The Current Studysupporting

confidence: 85%

“…In order to compare selectivity between groups and across grids, we used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to analyze item-location recall accuracy as a function of item value. HLM has been used in previous studies investigating memory selectivity (Castel, Murayama, Friedman, McGillivray, & Link, 2013; Middlebrooks & Castel, 2017; Middlebrooks et al, 2017; Middlebrooks, McGillivray, Murayama, & Castel, 2016; Middlebrooks, Murayama, et al, 2016; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The post-hoc binning of items into low, medium, and high value groups may not accurately reflect participants’ valuations of to-be-learned stimuli (e.g., Participant 1 may consider items with values 6–10 to be of “high” value, while Participant 2 may only consider items with values 8–10 as such).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ability to selectively allocate attention during encoding may also depend on the format in which information is encountered. Various studies have found that participants are less effective in executing goal-relevant study strategies for sequentially-presented, as compared to simultaneously-presented information (Ariel, Dunlosky, & Bailey, 2009; Dunlosky & Thiede, 2004; Middlebrooks & Castel, 2017; Robison & Unsworth, 2017). For sequentially-presented information, participants must maintain information in working memory while making item-by-item decisions in line with the task goal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As it currently stands, the literature suggests that participants are able to engage in selective study-strategies to optimize their performance related to task goals in both a verbal (Castel, 2008; Castel et al, 2002; Stefanidi et al, 2018) and visuospatial (Siegel & Castel, 2018) memory context. These value-based study strategies appear to be more effectively implemented when information is encountered in a simultaneous presentation format which may be due to decreased attentional load and strain on working memory resources during encoding relative to a sequential presentation of information (Ariel et al, 2009; Dunlosky & Thiede, 2004; Middlebrooks & Castel, 2017; Robison & Unsworth, 2017; Siegel & Castel, 2018). While some work has shown that an increase in attentional load during encoding may disrupt the binding of visual and spatial information (Brown & Brockmole, 2010; Elsley & Parmentier, 2009), it may not affect participants’ ability to execute value-based study strategies (Middlebrooks, Kerr, & Castel, 2017), although these factors have not been studied in conjunction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The role of attention in remembering important item-location associations

Siegel

Castel

2018

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When encountering an excess of information, people are able to selectively remember high-value information by strategically allocating attention during the encoding period, termed value-directed remembering. This has been demonstrated in both the episodic verbal and visuospatial memory domains. Importantly, the allocation of attention also plays a crucial role in the binding of identity and location information in visuospatial memory. We examined how taxing attentional resources to various degrees during encoding might affect visuospatial memory and selectivity. Participants studied items paired with point values indicating their value in a grid display and were asked to maximize their point score (a summation of the points associated with correctly remembered information). Participants viewed items under either a sequential or simultaneous presentation format and in either the presence or absence of a secondary tone discrimination task. While participants in the divided attention conditions recalled fewer item-location associations overall, participants in all encoding conditions prioritized high-value information in memory, providing further evidence that selectivity can be maintained even when attentional resources are taxed. However, differences between presentation formats emerged when conducting spatial resolution analyses examining errors. Errors in the simultaneous conditions were only influenced by item value when attention was full during encoding, while errors in the sequential conditions were not influenced by item value, regardless of available attentional resources. The results suggest participants can strategically allocate attention during encoding even under cognitively-demanding conditions and that gist-based visuospatial memory may only be influenced by information importance when adequate attentional resources are available.

show abstract

Section: The Current Studysupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The role of attention in remembering important item-location associations

Siegel

Castel

2018

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Items that are less likely to be on the test are studied for shorter amounts of time (Dunlosky & Thiede, 1998). This differential allocation of study time is more effective in simultaneous presentation than in sequential presentation (Middlebrooks & Castel, 2018). Thus, both expectations and the format of the to-be-learned information constrain the ways in which subjects adapt their study strategy.…”

Section: Controlling the Timing Of Study Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring the ebb and flow of attention: Does controlling the onset of stimuli during encoding enhance memory?

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Central to the operation of the Atkinson and Shiffrin's (Psychology of learning and motivation, 2, 89-195, 1968) model of human memory are a variety of control processes that manage information flow. Research on metacognition reveals that provision of control in laboratory learning tasks is generally beneficial to memory. In this paper, we investigate the novel domain of attentional fluctuations during study. If learners are able to monitor attention, then control over the onset of stimuli should also improve performance. Across four experiments, we found no evidence that control over the onset of stimuli enhances learning. This result stands in notable contrast to the fact that control over stimulus offset does enhance memory (Experiment 1; Tullis & Benjamin, Journal of memory and language, 64 (2), [109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118] 2011). This null finding was replicated across laboratory and online samples of subjects, and with both words and faces as study material. Taken together, the evidence suggests that people either cannot monitor fluctuations in attention effectively or cannot precisely time their study to those fluctuations.

show abstract

Do Students Effectively Regulate Their Use of Self-Testing as a Function of Item Difficulty?

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retrieval practice is beneficial for both easy-to-learn and difficult-to-learn materials, but scant research has examined students’ use of self-testing for items of varying difficulty. In two experiments, we investigated whether students differentially regulate their use of self-testing for easy and difficult items and assessed the effectiveness of students’ self-regulated choices. Undergraduate participants learned normatively easy and normatively difficult Lithuanian-English word pair translations. After an initial study trial, participants in the self-regulated learning groups chose whether they wanted to restudy an item, take a practice test, or remove an item from further practice. Participants chose to test items repeatedly while learning but dropped both easy and difficult items after reaching a criterion of about one correct recall per item. Consequently, final test performance 2 days later was lower for difficult items versus easy items, and performance was lower in the self-regulated learning group than in an experimenter-controlled comparison group (in Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, we tested hypotheses for why participants reached a similar number of correct recalls for both easy and difficult items. Three new groups included different scaffolds aimed at minimizing potential barriers to effective regulation. These scaffolds did not change participants’ learning choices, and as a result, performance on difficult items was still lower than on easy items. Importantly, participants planned to continue practicing items beyond one correct recall and believed that an optimal student should practice difficult items more than easy items, but they did not execute this plan during the learning task.

show abstract

Self-regulated learning of important information under sequential and simultaneous encoding conditions.

Cited by 23 publications

References 44 publications

The role of attention in remembering important item-location associations

The role of attention in remembering important item-location associations

Monitoring the ebb and flow of attention: Does controlling the onset of stimuli during encoding enhance memory?

Do Students Effectively Regulate Their Use of Self-Testing as a Function of Item Difficulty?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About