The costs and benefits of testing and guessing on recognition memory.

Huff, Mark J.; Balota, David A.; Hutchison, Keith A.

doi:10.1037/xlm0000269

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence for differences in lure detection have been illustrated in two prior studies conducted by the first author. In these studies, participants studied DRM lists (Coane, Huff, & Hutchison, 2016) or categorized lists (Huff et al, 2016) constructed identically to the present lists and were asked to explicitly guess what the critical lure(s) was after study. Participants were more likely to correctly guess DRM lures (.36) than categorized lures (ranging from .20 to .23 across experiments), suggesting that DRM lures are indeed easier for participants to generate and possibly detect on a later test.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these exemplars, the five most common exemplars (i.e., the top five items in the norms) were designated as critical lures and were not studied. The remaining 15 exemplars were then used as study items and presented in descending order of typicality (see Huff, Balota, & Hutchison, 2016;Meade & Roediger, 2006, for a similar procedure). A 260-item recognition test was then constructed and composed of 80 studied list items (from positions 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 from each studied list), 80 list item controls taken from the nonstudied list set (from the same list positions), 50 critical lures (five per studied list), and 50 critical-lure controls (five per nonstudied list).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Item-specific processing reduces false recognition in older and younger adults: Separating encoding and retrieval using signal detection and the diffusion model

Huff

Aschenbrenner

2018

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our study examined processing effects in improving memory accuracy in older and younger adults. Specifically, we evaluated the effectiveness of item-specific and relational processing instructions relative to a read-only control task on correct and false recognition in younger and older adults using a categorized-list paradigm. In both age groups, item-specific and relational processing improved correct recognition versus a read-only control task, and item-specific encoding decreased false recognition relative to both the relational and read-only groups. This pattern was found in older adults despite overall elevated rates of false recognition. We then applied signal-detection and diffusion-modeling analyses, which separately utilized recognition responses and the latencies to those responses to estimate contributions of encoding and monitoring processes on recognition decisions. Converging evidence from both analyses demonstrated that item-specific processing benefits to memory accuracy were due to improvements of both encoding (estimates of d' and drift rate) and monitoring (estimates of lambda and boundary separation) processes, and, importantly, occurred similarly in both younger and older adults. Thus, older and younger adults showed similar encoding-based and test-based benefits of item-specific processing to enhance memory accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Item-specific processing reduces false recognition in older and younger adults: Separating encoding and retrieval using signal detection and the diffusion model

Huff

Aschenbrenner

2018

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies that reported data in that manner, as well as studies in which that data could be derived (e.g., number of points earned out of a maximum possible total), were included. For five studies in which a recognition final test was used, proportion correct was used where it was reported as the dependent measure (e.g., Bies-Hernandez, 2014; Huff, Balota, & Hutchison, 2016; Verkoeijen, Bouwmeester, & Camp, 2012) or was derivable from reported mean rates of hits (e.g., Carpenter, 2011) or hits minus false alarms (e.g., Jacoby, Wahlheim, & Coane, 2010). (It should be noted, however, that proportion correct in the case of recognition does not account for response criterion effects and is an incomplete measure of performance; for discussion see Stanislaw & Todorov, 1999.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With respect to training condition (e.g., testing vs. nontesting reexposure control), each study was coded as using a between- or within-subjects design. In the test-enhanced learning literature, between-subjects designs typically yield larger effect sizes (Rowland, 2014), although that result has not always been obtained when between- versus within-subjects group assignment has been manipulated within a single experiment (e.g., Huff, Balota, & Hutchison, 2016; Rowland, Littrell-Baez, Sensenig, & DeLosh, 2014; Experiment 3; Soderstrom & Bjork, 2014). Intercoder agreement was κ = 0.97.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer of test-enhanced learning: Meta-analytic review and synthesis.

Pan

Rickard

2018

Psychological Bulletin

204

254

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attempting recall of information from memory, as occurs when taking a practice test, is one of the most potent training techniques known to learning science. However, does testing yield learning that transfers to different contexts? In the present article, we report the findings of the first comprehensive meta-analytic review into that question. Our review encompassed 192 transfer effect sizes extracted from 122 experiments and 67 published and unpublished articles (N = 10,382) that together comprise more than 40 years of research. A random-effects model revealed that testing can yield transferrable learning as measured relative to a nontesting reexposure control condition (d = 0.40, 95% CI [0.31, 0.50]). That transfer of learning is greatest across test formats, to application and inference questions, to problems involving medical diagnoses, and to mediator and related word cues; it is weakest to rearranged stimulus-response items, to untested materials seen during initial study, and to problems involving worked examples. Moderator analyses further indicated that response congruency and elaborated retrieval practice, as well as initial test performance, strongly influence the likelihood of positive transfer. In two assessments for publication bias using PET-PEESE and various selection methods, the moderator effect sizes were minimally affected. However, the intercept predictions were substantially reduced, often indicating no positive transfer when none of the aforementioned moderators are present. Overall, our results motivate a three-factor framework for transfer of test-enhanced learning and have practical implications for the effective use of practice testing in educational and other training contexts. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

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

Huff

Yates

Balota

2018

Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

The costs and benefits of testing and guessing on recognition memory.

Cited by 5 publications

References 65 publications

Item-specific processing reduces false recognition in older and younger adults: Separating encoding and retrieval using signal detection and the diffusion model

Item-specific processing reduces false recognition in older and younger adults: Separating encoding and retrieval using signal detection and the diffusion model

Transfer of test-enhanced learning: Meta-analytic review and synthesis.

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About