The effects of proactive interference (PI) and release from PI on judgments of learning

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 196-203

  Diaz, Michael ^a   Benjamin, Aaron S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Metacognition; Metamemory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; LEARNING; PAIRED ASSOCIATE LEARNING; PROACTIVE INHIBITION; RECALL; RECOGNITION;

CUES; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MENTAL RECALL; PAIRED-ASSOCIATE LEARNING; PROACTIVE INHIBITION; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SERIAL LEARNING;

EID: 79952183781     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-010-0010-y     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Begg, I., Duft, S., Lalonde, P., Melnick, R., & Sanvito, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 610-632. doi:10.1016/0749-596X (89)90016-8.
2. Benjamin, A. S. (2003). Predicting and postdicting the effects of word frequency on memory. Memory & Cognition, 31, 297-305. (Pubitemid 36523508)
3. Benjamin, A. S. (2005). Response speeding mediates the contribution of cue familiarity and target retrievability to metamnemonic judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 874-879. (Pubitemid 43341542)
4. Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. In L. Reder (Ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Benjamin, A. S., & Bird, R. D. (2006). Metacognitive control of the spacing of study repetitions. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 126-137. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.003. (Pubitemid 43758647)
6. Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Hirshman, E. (1998a). Predicting the future and reconstructing the past: A Bayesian characterization of the utility of subjective fluency. Acta Psychologica, 98, 267-290. doi:10.1016/S0001- 6918(97)00046-2. (Pubitemid 128416541)
7. Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998b). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 55-68. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.127.1.55. (Pubitemid 128460251)
8. Blake, M. (1973). Prediction of recognition when recall fails: Exploring the feeling-of-knowing phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 12, 311-319. doi:10.1016/ S0022-5371(73)80075-1.
9. Craik, F. I. (1970). The fate of primary memory items in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 9, 143-148. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80042-1.
10. Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory & Cognition, 20, 374-380.
11. Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (2000). Updating knowledge about encoding strategies: A componential analysis of learning about strategy effectiveness from task experience. Psychology and Aging, 15, 462-474. doi:10.1037/0882-7974. 15.3.462.
12. Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
13. Finley, J. R., Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2010). Metacognitive control of learning and remembering. In M. S. Khine & I. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: cognition, computers and collaboration in education. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/ 978-1-4419-5716-0-6.
14. Hertzog, C., Dunlosky, J., Robinson, A., & Kidder, D. (2003). Encoding fluency is a cue used for judgments about learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(1), 22-34. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.22. (Pubitemid 37177384)
15. Kelley, C., & Jacoby, L. (1996). Adult egocentrism: Subjective experience versus analytic bases for judgment. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(2), 157-175. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.0009. (Pubitemid 126159686)
16. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349-370. doi:10.1037/ 0096-3445.126.4.349.
17. Koriat, A., & Ma'ayan, H. (2005). The effects of encoding fluency and retrieval fluency on judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 478-492. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.001. (Pubitemid 40473680)
18. Koriat, A., Sheffer, L., & Ma'ayan, H. (2002). Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: Judgments of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 147-162. doi:10.1037/0096- 3445.131.2.147.
19. Maki, R. H. (1999). The roles of competition, target accessibility, and cue familiarity in metamemory for word pairs. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1011-1023. doi:10.1037/0278- 7393.25.4.1011.
20. Mazzoni, G., & Nelson, T. O. (1995). Judgments of learning are affected by the kind of encoding in ways that cannot be attributed to the level of recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 5, 1263-1274. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.5.1263.
21. Metcalfe, J., Schwartz, B. L., & Joaquim, S. G. (1993). The cuefamiliarity heuristic in metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 851-864. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.4.851.
22. Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people's judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The "delayed-JOL effect.". Psychological Science, 2, 267-270. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00147.x.
23. Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1992). How shall we explain the delayed-judgment-of-learning effect? Psychological Science, 3, 317-318. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00681.x.
24. Postman, L. (1962). Transfer of training as a function of experimental paradigm and degree of first-list learning. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 1, 109-118. doi:10.1016/S0022- 5371(62)80007-3.
25. Rhodes, M., & Castel, A. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 615-625. doi:10.1037/a0013684.
26. Schreiber, T. A. (1998). Effects of target set size on feelings of knowing and cued recall: Implications for the cue effectiveness and partial - retrievalhypotheses. Memory & Cognition, 26, 553-571. (Pubitemid 28226259)
27. Schreiber, T. A., & Nelson, D. L. (1998). The relation between feelings of knowing and the number ofneighboring concepts linked to the test cue. Memory & Cognition, 26, 869-883. (Pubitemid 28480732)
28. Schwartz, B. L., Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (1997). The inferential and experiential bases of metamemory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6, 132-137. doi:10.1111/ 1467-8721.ep10772899.
29. Son, L. K. (2004). Spacing one's study: Evidence for a metacognitive control strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 601-604. doi:10.1037/0278- 7393.30.3.601. (Pubitemid 38652230)
30. Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2000). Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 204-221. doi:10.1037/ 0278-7393.26.1.204.
31. Strong, E. K., Jr. (1912). The effect of length of series upon recognition memory. Psychological Review, 19, 447-462. doi:10.1037/h0069812.
32. Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). Toward a general model of selfregulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1024-1037. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.25.4.1024.
33. Watkins, O. C., & Watkins, M. J. (1975). Buildup of proactive inhibition as a cue-overload effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1, 442-452. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.1.4.442.
34. Wickens, D. D. (1970). Encoding categories of words: An empirical approach to meaning. Psychological Review, 77, 1-15. doi:10.1037/h0028569.
35. Wixted, J. T. (2004). The psychology and neuroscience of forgetting. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 235-269. doi:10.1146/ annurev.psych.55.090902. 141555.