Class Notes (806,632)
Canada (492,366)
Psychology (1,539)
PSYC 325 (25)

Ch 9 Lec 7.docx

7 Pages
Unlock Document

Simon Fraser University
PSYC 325
Mario Liotti

Ch 9 Lec 7 Metacognition - Our knowledge and awareness of our own cognitive processes Metamemory - Our knowledge and awareness of our own memory processes. (“I know the names of every president of the US, but just a few UK prime ministers”. We know what we know and what we don’t know. A knowledge of our own memory) - Monitoring o Our ability to reflect and become aware of what we know and what we do not (thermostat analogy) o Accuracy  When you think you know something, you do know it, and vice versa o Control  Our ability to regulate our learning or retrieval based on our own monitoring (studying for 2 classes, realize one is hopeless, focus on other) - Example, who wants to be a millionaire, how do you decide between lifelines, by the extent to which you are sure you know the answer Metamemory Judgements - The subjective reports that people give to indicate whether they think they have learned or can retrieve any target memory - Ease-of-Learning judgements o Estimates of how likely an item will be remembered in advance of actual studying. They are predictions about how difficult that item will be to learn - Judgements of Learning o Judgements (made during study) of whether the item has been learned already o Main judgement that researchers use to study metacognition during encoding o Why study JOL?  Likely that many people implicitly make JOL during learning and that JOL directly affect our choices when we sit down and decide how we are going to learn/prepare for exam  If people naturally use JOL to guide their study, it is important to know if they are accurate and if that accuracy can be improved  For experimentalists, JOL offer an advantage over FOK and TOT= JOL can be made on all items, not just those that remain unrecalled o Studied 2 ways  Cue-target. Present them and ask subject to predict if that item will be recalled later when presented with only cue (ask them while showing both)  Cue-only. Present participant with only cue when asking to predict if they will be able to recall later  More accurate at predicting future test performance (if there is a delay between initial study of the pair and the JOL). Just a few minutes can raise the accuract of JOL to close to perfect. o Called Delayed JOL Effect o Delayed JOL Effect  Dunlosky argues that if subject retrieves the target at the time of JOL, they are also likely to retrieve it at the time of test  so the JOL is kind of like a test run for the test. This is called the Monitoring Dual-memories hypothesis  this cannot occur with cue-target JOL because target is already presented  Spellman argued that testing yourself is a powerful method. So whenever we engage in JOL, we are implicitly testing ourselves if we recall target during JOL, we are giving it a boost in memory strength. This is similar to the testing effect (a testing trial produces better learning than a study trial) o Factors influencing JOL  Delayed JOL involved accuracy, the following involve confidence  Fluency and speed of retrieval  High and low JOL were made quickly and fluently, intermediate JOL –hard but possible to retrieve, received the longest response times  When cue-only JOL were made under speeded conditions, judgements were influenced by cue familiarity, but when not timed, the factors that influenced the memorability also influenced JOL  Easily learned- easily remembered  Where is the item on the serial position curve. JOL higher for items in primacy and recency o Brain Mechanisms for JOL  Ventromedial, lateral, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex.  Patients with frontal lobe damage less accurate on JOL - Feeling-of-Knowing judgements o Estimations (at retrieval) of the likelihood that an unrecalled item will be recognized o Similar to TOT except you won’t necessarily recall it soon (may recognize) o How to examine it: o Recall-judgement-recognition (RJR)  First used by Joseph Hart  Participant tries to recall answer to question or target of cue-target pair. If unsuccessful, participants provide a FOK judgement for recognition of that item, then a recognition test is conducted to measure accuracy o Game Show paradigm  Lynn Reder  Subject is given a question and as fast as possible, must either indicate answer or simply that they know the answer.  They found that people could make know it response faster than actually retrieving the name  This suggests that we have an initial and rapid feeling of knowing, which we can actually act on even before we recall the target word  That we can determine that we know an answer faster than we can actually recall the answer supports the heuristic view of metamemory judgements (inferential) o Cue familiarity  The more familiar the cues, the higher the FOK  Schwartz and Metcalfe  Asked subjects to study randomly selected cue-target pairs. Before subjects were tested they were given a long list of words and asked to rate whether or not these words were pleasant. Some of the word on the rating task were also cues in the cue-target pairs. The cue words that had been primed to be more familiar in the pleasantness rating task were on average given higher FOK judgements when subjects could not recall the target word. o FOK is rather accurate and useful o Brain Mechanisms of FOK  FOK also activate areas in parietal lobe, and more concentrated in left hemisphere (TOT is right).  Inferior frontal gyrus  Maril  180 word pairs presented for 3s (form mental image of concepts). Recall: know, FOK, DK o Neuropsychology and FOK  Temporal lobe amnesia – normal FOK accuracy  Kosakoff’s amnesia – impaired accuracy  - Tip-of-the-tongue States o The feeling that an unrecalled item will be recalled soon o Availability vs Accessibility (it’s there but we can’t reach it) o Knowledge possessed during TOT can be:  World for item in different language, whether or not person has middle name, first letter and number of syllables, similar words phonetically and semantically, tastes associated with word, grammatical aspects (gender) o Theoretical Mechanisms of TOT  Heuristic view of metacognition- we use clues and cues to infer that we will remember or learn a particular item  Research supports the idea of TOT’s caused by inferential or indirect processes  Schwartz and Smith (1997)  Varied amount of related info presented at encoding about fictional animals (just name-country, plus picture, plus picture and plus diet&size)  Varied info had no effect on recall or recognition  More TOT with medium and maximum info given  Number of reported TOTs was correlated with the amount of related info given. So when more info was accessible, more TOT’s were experienced  This supports inferential theory because it was not the strength of the target name driving the number of TOT’s, but rather the amount of related info o Brain Mechanisms of TOT  Circuits in prefrontal lobes of the cerebral cortex important for metamemory  Monitoring linked to areas of the prefrontal cortex known as dorsomedial PFC. Control linked to dorsolateral PFC. Both also active during TOT, implying TOT is a metamemory and not just word retrieval error  Maril shown anterior cingulate (part of DLPFC) activated during TOT- involved in surprise,novelty,and cognitive monitoring. Also activated is dorsolateral cortex, associated with metacognit
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 325

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.