Evaluating the contributions of task expectancy in the testing and guessing benefits on recognition memory

Abstract

Recently, we have shown that two types of initial testing (recall of a list or guessing of critical items repeated over 12 study/test cycles) improved final recognition of related and unrelated word lists relative to restudy. These benefits were eliminated, however, when test instructions were manipulated within subjects and presented after study of each list, procedures designed to minimise expectancy of a specific type of upcoming test [Huff, Balota, & Hutchison, 2016. The costs and benefits of testing and guessing on recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 1559-1572. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000269 ], suggesting that testing and guessing effects may be influenced by encoding strategies specific for the type of upcoming task. We follow-up these experiments by examining test-expectancy processes in guessing and testing. Testing and guessing benefits over restudy were not found when test instructions were presented either after (Experiment 1) or before (Experiment 2) a single study/task cycle was completed, nor were benefits found when instructions were presented before study/task cycles and the task was repeated three times (Experiment 3). Testing and guessing benefits emerged only when instructions were presented before a study/task cycle and the task was repeated six times (Experiments 4A and 4B). These experiments demonstrate that initial testing and guessing can produce memory benefits in recognition, but only following substantial task repetitions which likely promote task-expectancy processes.

Performance Practice in a Pandemic: Training Ensemble Skills Using E-Tivities in Music Teacher Education

“…The study of the early stages of language learning showed the impact of high-frequency marker words that "may assist early grammatical categorization" (Frost et al, 2019). In the research of memory, recognition established the appearance of testing and guessing benefits only after enough repetitions of the study cycle and the task by the instructor (Huff et al, 2018). In another study, a strong correlation between repetitive activity and retention of anatomical knowledge was figured out; at the same time, there were no significant differences due to the type of repetition activity in effect on knowledge (Kooloos et al, 2020).…”

Reducing False Recognition in the Deese-Roediger/McDermott Paradigm: Related Lures Reveal How Distinctive Encoding Improves Encoding and Monitoring Processes

“…This pattern contrasts the notion that impoverished relational encoding and the distinctiveness operate globally, given that distinctive tasks had no effect on false recognition of weakly related lures. However, Smith and Hunt’s participants completed a recall test prior to the final recognition test, which may have contaminated recognition (see Huff et al, 2018 , for review). Moreover, Smith and Hunt did not find that picture encoding improved correct recognition, unlike for other distinctive tasks, suggesting that picture encoding may not be as effective as other distinctive tasks.…”