1
Q
Nelson & Narens 1990 - Object + Meta Level processes
A
- object and meta level processes within memory
- object level > memory, reasoning, decision making
- meta level > monitor object level processes and exert control
- use of regulatory feedback loop
e.g. how well have I remembered this
2
Q
Yaniv & Meyer 1987 - Retrieval failures - TOT - Infrequent Words
A
- gave people definitions for infrequent words
- people struggle to remember words for these things
- e.g. in old greek stories the food of the gods giving mortality to those who ate it (ambrosia)
3
Q
TOT states - James 1890
A
- richness of subjective experience around memory> know enough to know its not another word > aware its in your memory but unsure of what it is
Brown 1991 > review of TOT - tot people will often be able to tell you first letter of word
4
Q
Hart 1965 - Recall judge recognise (RJR)
A
- 3 stage experiment
1) - general knowledge memory test > ppts asked to recall answers
2) focus on questions where ppts cannot recall answers > asked to make FOK judgement (binary or on graded rating)
3) all questions given recognition memory test > can ppt recognise correct answer given set of options
5
Q
Hart 1965 - Recall judge recognise (RJR) FINDINGS
A
- some people can recognise answers they couldn’t recall
- wanted to see if accuracy in recognition task matched predictions from FOK judgements
- found there is a relationship between judgements of FOK and recognition but it is not perfect
- ## systematic relationship between graded FOK judgements and recognition > higher FOk ratings correlate with higher recognition
6
Q
FOK Measure - Calibration
A
- calibration between FOK and objective memory performance
-overconfidence> FOK judgement exceeds objective performance - underconfidence > objective performance exceeds FOK judgement
- ## calibration is not perfect
7
Q
Squire 2009 - Memory distinct from metamemory
A
- memory is a neural function distinct from other cognitive functions
- relies on interactions among multiple systems
- hippocampus + neocortex + Medial temporal lobe
8
Q
FOK measure - Consistency
A
- measure relative accuracy of metacognition
- internal consistency of judgements > when somebody says they are more likely to remember the correct answer are they more likely
- scale does not matter
- looks at correlation rather than deviation from objective performance
- Good resolution > stronger FOK = more likely to recognise answer > Gamma correlation
-refers to the stability or reliability of individuals’ judgments of their own knowledge or memory
9
Q
Difference between consistency and calibration
A
To illustrate the difference between consistency and calibration, consider the following scenario: A person is presented with a list of words and is asked to rate their FOK for each word. Subsequently, they are asked to recall or recognize those words. If the person consistently rates some words as “known” across multiple trials, their FOK judgments demonstrate consistency. However, if their FOK judgments align closely with their actual memory performance (i.e., accurate judgments), it indicates good calibration
10
Q
FOK - Prospective judgement
A
- how likely are you to recognise the correct answer when you see it
-making a judgement now on how well you will do in the future - opposes retrospective judgement
11
Q
Hart 1965 - Direct access hypothesis
A
- memory system comes with built in indicator
- FOK serves as indicator of what is stored in memory when retrieval temporarily unsuccessful/interrupted
- id indicator signals item not in storage, system will not expend effort to retrieve it
- if indicator signal it is in storage > system will avoid redundantly inputting information it already posses
11
Q
Hart 1965 - Direct access hypothesis - Built in indicator
A
- memory system comes with built in indicator
- FOK serves as indicator of what is stored in memory when retrieval temporarily unsuccessful/interrupted
- id indicator signals item not in storage, system will not expend effort to retrieve it
- if indicator signal it is in storage > system will avoid redundantly inputting information it already posses
12
Q
Challenges to idea of direct access
A
- FOK not perfectly reliable (Hart 1965)
- FOKS can be very fast (Kolers & Palef 1976)
- Conceptual challenges > how memories are stored > connectionist models of knowledge > network of connections > cannot look at synapses to see how memories are stored > we can only understand these networks through inputs and outputs (see how well it retrieves)
13
Q
Koriat 1993 - Answer accessibility
A
- RJR study with consonant strings (e.g FHJT)
- ppts given consonant string to remember > asked to recall > if cannot recall asked to judge if they can recognise among set of answers
- retrieving fragments indicates that the information is there in memory as opposed to a blank
- found partial answers predicted FOK judgements
- FOK varies with number of items retrieved
- partial answers used as cue
14
Q
Reder 1987 - question familiarity
A
- effects of practice and priming on FOK
- manipulated ppts feelings of familiarity of question independent of what they knew
- priming phase > asked to judge e.g. how often do you see the words ‘wine’ and ‘grapes’ paired in texts
- Game show task
- some questions will be primed from earlier phase but others not > manipulates people familiarity of question independent of what is in their memory
- does FOK reflect familiarity ?
- ## ppts decide whether they want to answer question or not (based on FOK rather than asking for direct FOK judgment)
15
Q
Reder 1987 - question familiarity FINDINGS
A
- for primed words > 7% increase in FOK , 4% decrease in accuracy
16
Q
Costermanns et al 1982 - FOKs depend on inferential knowledge
A
- asked ppl general knowledge questions
- FOK did not correlate well with accuracy > weak predictor of successful recognition (G=0.27)
FOKS correlate strongly with : - ratings of ‘is the domain familiar’ (G=0.49)
- ratings of ‘would others know’ (G=0.59)
- seems to be more theory dependent raher than based on experience
17
Q
Atir et al - Overclaiming of impossible knowledge
A
- people given terms e.g. fixed-rate mortgage
- asked to rated on scale 1-7 (never heard of it to knowledgeable)
- annualised credit made up > people claimed to know it even if its made up
rates of overclaiming related to background knowledge > more financial expertise people had the higher FOK ratings were > reliance of general theories of yourself
theory driven v experience based
18
Q
Kolers & Panef 1976 - Familiarity and Strategy Selection
A
- use familiarity to aid strategy selection > helps us decide whether answer in memory or not
- if unfamiliar domain > we can make quick ‘knowing not’ decisions
19
Q
Reder & ritter 1992 - Retrieve v Calculate in arithmetic
A
- ppts give equation
-more points for retrieval , fewer points if you calculate - incentive - ppts decide quickly whether to retrieve answer to arithmetic question or calculate
- see questions multiple time
- more familiar question feels, more likely you are to retrieve rather than calculate
- in some conditions, same numbers in equation was kept but operators were switched (e.g. 12 + 7 became 12 x 7) > sense of familiarity even though equation difference > leads to people to retrieving answers due to false familiarity
20
Q
Costermanns 1992 - Retrieval reaction time varies with FOK
A
- retrieving general knowledge questions
- looked at how ppts FOK given on the trials where they were failed to know the answer
- wanted to see how long people take to give up
- found people take longer to give up when they have a higher FOK and vice versa
- FOK predicts how long you keep trying
- more confidence they are in FOK , the faster they retrieved
21
Q
Koriat and Levy Sadot 2001 - Dynamic control
A
- people use multiple cues in dynamic ways
- when given a question, quick familiarity judgment made
- if you find a question unfamiliar you wont try and achieve it, it shouldn’t matter how accessible bits of answer are
- tested this by varying accessibility of information
- questions rated low in familiarity > there was not much effect of accessibility
- questions rated more familiar there is a bigger effect of accessibility
- more information is retrieved the more you feel like there is an answer in memory
Metacognition
flashcards
Decks in class (8)
# Cards
