Immediate judgments of learning predict subsequent recollection: Evidence from event-related potentials.

Abstract

Judgments of learning (JOLs) are assessments of how well materials have been learned. Although a wide body of literature has demonstrated a reliable correlation between memory performance and JOLs, relatively little is known about the nature of this link. Here, we investigate the relationship between JOLs and the memory retrieval processes engaged on a subsequent memory test. Participants first studied cue-target word pairs and assigned JOLs to each. Later, memory for the cue word in each pair was assessed using an old/new recognition memory task, and electrophysiological measures of familiarity and recollection were examined. Recognition accuracy was superior for materials given high rather than low JOLs. Analysis of event-related potentials (ERPs) revealed that for both high and low JOL items, successful recognition elicited correlates of familiarity (the mid-frontal effect) and recollection (the left-parietal effect). Importantly, however, the magnitude of the familiarity correlate was equal for high and low JOL items, whereas the magnitude of the recollection correlate was significantly larger for items given high JOLs. These findings demonstrate that JOLs made at study correlate with memory retrieval at test-but that this correlation is specific to recollection. The electrophysiological data support the broader view that participants focus on contextual cues when making JOLs, which may later aid recollection.

Differential Neural Correlates Underlie Judgment of Learning and Subsequent Memory Performance

“…Only a few functional imaging studies have been conducted to specify the neural circuitry of JOL, all using the immediate JOL paradigm ( Kao et al, 2005 ; Skavhaug et al, 2010 , 2013 ; Do Lam et al, 2012 ). In the first neuroimaging study on the neural basis of JOL ( Kao et al, 2005 ), participants were asked to estimate during encoding whether they would later be able to recognize each presented item.…”

Do judgments of learning predict automatic influences of memory?

“…Evidence for dual-process theories of memory comes from studies with amnesic patients as well as from behavioral and neuroimaging studies (e.g., Yonelinas, 2002). Only recently have researchers begun to investigate JOLs from a dual-process perspective (Daniels, Toth, & Hertzog, 2009; McCabe & Soderstrom, 2011; Skavhaug, Wilding, & Donaldson, 2013; Soderstrom, McCabe, & Rhodes, 2012; Soderstrom & Rhodes, 2014; Toth, Daniels, & Solinger, 2011). As described in detail below, previous studies suggest that both magnitude and resolution of JOLs are linked to recollection.…”

Use of Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy to Explore Metacognitive Ability and Academic Score

“…Therefore, ERP data indicate that JOLs do not reduce the encoding processes that predict the accuracy of memory judgments [23]. Previous findings reported that JOLs made during studying correlate with memory retrieval during test; however, this correlation is specific to recollection [24]. A previous study revealed that JOLs were accompanied by a positive slow wave over the medial frontal areas and a bilateral negative slow wave over occipital areas [25].…”

“…A 24-item metacognitive ability scale was used [18], involving four factors: metacognitive planning (seven items, including 7,9,16,17,18,21,24), metacognitive monitoring (six items, including 8, 10, 12, 13, 22, 23), metacognitive regulating (six items, including 1, 2, 3,4,19,20), and metacognitive evaluating (five items, including 5,6,11,14,15). The response alternatives were on a five-point Likert scale (1, never; 2, seldom; 3, sometimes; 4, often; and 5, always).…”