Biomedical subjects

Thomas O Nelson

Publications and source records attributed to Thomas O Nelson.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Lack of pervasiveness of the underconfidence-with-practice effect: boundary conditions and an explanation via anchoring.

The authors investigated whether underconfidence in judgments of learning (JOLs) is pervasive across multiple study-test trials as suggested by A. Koriat, L. Sheffer, and H. Ma'ayan (2002) or whether underconfidence with practice (UWP) might be a kind of anchoring-and-adjustment effect, such that the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the UWP effect depends on whether recall is above a psychological anchor. Participants studied normatively difficult items or normatively easy items and made immediate JOLs or delayed JOLs. The UWP effect occurred for easy items, but for difficult items an overconfidence-with-practice (OWP) effect occurred for delayed JOLs and no bias occurred for immediate JOLs. The systematic occurrence of all 3 outcomes establishes boundary conditions for the UWP effect and confirms the hypothesis that underconfidence (or the lack thereof) may arise at least in part from an anchoring-and-adjustment mechanism.

Humans↗

PubMed2005

How many dimensions underlie judgments of learning and recall? Evidence from state-trace methodology.

The authors used state-trace methodology to investigate whether a single dimension (e.g., strength) is sufficient to account for recall and judgments of learning (JOLs) or whether multiple dimensions (e.g., intrinsic and extrinsic factors) are needed. The authors separately manipulated the independent variables of intrinsic and extrinsic cues, determining their state traces for recall and JOLs. In contrast to the supposition that intrinsic cues have similar effects on both recall and JOLs whereas extrinsic cues affect JOLs less strongly than recall (i.e., 2 dimensions underlying recall and JOLs), the authors found repeated support for the sufficiency of a single dimension for both recall and JOLs (not only immediate JOLs but also delayed JOLs) across a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic cues.

Attention↗

PubMed2005

Using the past to predict the future.

This research addressed three issues. First, we examined whether retrospective confidence judgments (RCJs) and judgments of learning (JOLs) assess memory differently. Second, we examined the relative accuracy of JOLs and RCJs at predicting future recall performance. Third, we examined whether making JOLs improves subsequent recall better than making RCJs or making no metacognitive judgment. Results suggest that RCJs and JOLs are both based on retrievability, but that participants use their memory differently when making JOLs. RCJs were more accurate than JOLs at predicting future recall for some subsets of items, but the reverse was true for other subsets of items. Finally, eventual recall performance was facilitated when participants made JOLs but not when they made RCJs, suggesting that the JOL task helps to improve people's learning of the items.

Humans↗

PubMed2004

A revised methodology for research on metamemory: Pre-judgment Recall and Monitoring (PRAM).

A revised methodology is described for research on metacognitive monitoring, especially judgments of learning (JOLs), to investigate psychological processing that previously has been only hypothetical and unobservable. During data collection a new stage of recall occurs just prior to the JOL, so that during data analysis the items can be partitioned into subcategories to measure the degree of JOL accuracy in ways that are more analytic than was previously possible. A weighted-average combinatorial rule allows the component measures of JOL accuracy to be combined into the usual overall measure of metacognitive accuracy. An example using the revised methodology offers a new explanation for the delayed-JOL effect, in which delayed JOLs are more accurate than immediate JOLs for predicting recall.

Humans↗

PubMed2004

Effect of the difficulty of prior items on the magnitude of judgments of learning for subsequent items.

Research on metacognition often uses various kinds of paired-associate items (e.g., foreign language translation equivalents) to investigate judgments of learning (JOLs) under the assumption that the JOLs are made independently of each other. We tested this assumption by exploring the effect of manipulating the difficulty of prior Swahili-English translation equivalents to determine whether there is a contrasting change in the magnitude of the JOLs assigned to subsequent Swahili-English translation equivalents (e.g., intermediate-difficulty items might receive lower JOLs when following easy items than when following difficult items). The magnitude of JOLs for the subsequent items did not vary as a function of the difficulty of the prior items, even when there were 10 prior items of homogeneous difficulty that differed from the difficulty of the subsequent to-be-judged items.

Cognition↗

PubMed2003

Multiple study trials and judgments of learning.

We compared judgments of learning (JOLs) that were made either (a) after 1 study trial, (b) 2 study trials, or (c) in-between the 1st and 2nd study trials. In regard to the absolute accuracy of JOLs at predicting subsequent recall, we replicated previous findings of an underconfidence-with-practice effect for immediate JOLs and report for the first time a new finding of an underconfidence-with-practice effect for delayed JOLs (i.e., delayed JOLs after one trial overestimated the likelihood of subsequent recall, whereas delayed JOLs after two trials underestimated that likelihood). Also, although delayed JOLs always had a greater relative accuracy than did immediate JOLs, the relative accuracy of immediate and delayed JOLs was approximately the same after 1 versus 2 study trials. These results demonstrate that additional study trials affect the absolute accuracy of all JOLs but not the relative accuracy of any JOLs. Thus an increase in the number of study trials produced an increasing bias to be underconfident about the subsequent likelihood of recall but did not affect people's ordering of which items had been more (versus less) well-learned.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

The word frequency effect for recognition memory and the elevated-attention hypothesis.

Empirical tests were conducted on the elevated-attention hypothesis that low-frequency (LF) words are better recognized than high-frequency (HF) words because LF words attract more attention than do HF words (e.g., Glanzer & Adams, 1990). The elevated-attention hypothesis predicts that the hit rate advantage for LF words should be reduced by increases in attentional strain at study. We first tested this prediction in two experiments by varying the amount of experimenter-controlled study time (on the basis of the assumption that a decrease in study time would reduce the amount of resources available for studying a word). The elevated-attention hypothesis was confirmed, but only when words were studied for relatively short durations. This finding led us to formulate an early-phase elevated-attention hypothesis that proposes that more attentional resources are allocated to LF words than to HF words only during the early phase of encoding (which produces the LF hit rate advantage in subsequent recognition) and that the allocation of attentional resources during the late phase of encoding is not greater for LF words than for HF words. An additional empirical test of this revised hypothesis was conducted: Experimenter-controlled study time and the composition of the to-be-remembered pairs of words were varied orthogonally. The results confirmed the early-phase elevated-attention hypothesis.

Attention↗