Examining the influence of list composition on the mnemonic benefit of errorful generation.

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Memory Pub Date : 2024-10-14 DOI:10.1080/09658211.2024.2413159
Donnelle DiMarco, Skylar J Laursen, Katherine R Churey, Chris M Fiacconi
{"title":"Examining the influence of list composition on the mnemonic benefit of errorful generation.","authors":"Donnelle DiMarco, Skylar J Laursen, Katherine R Churey, Chris M Fiacconi","doi":"10.1080/09658211.2024.2413159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite literature showing that errorful generation with corrective feedback enhances retention better than mere studying, it is unclear if this benefit depends on the composition of the learning list (pure error generation/read versus mixed). Here, we investigated whether the mnemonic advantage and metamnemonic evaluation of errorful generation generalise beyond mixed-list designs. Experiment 1 used a free-recall test, while Experiments 2 and 3 used a cued-recall test, with Experiment 3 also including a judgment of learning (JOL) assessment. Only when memory was tested via free recall did the benefit of errorful generation depend on experimental design, with the effect being most robust in mixed lists. Replicating past research, we too found that despite a clear mnemonic benefit for error generation in cued-recall tests, participants predicted better memory following read-only trials, and that this effect was not contingent on list composition. At the practical level, these findings demonstrate instances in which errorful generation is beneficial for memory and learning. At the theoretical level, the results fit nicely within the item-order framework in accounting for commonly observed design effects in free recall.</p>","PeriodicalId":18569,"journal":{"name":"Memory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2413159","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite literature showing that errorful generation with corrective feedback enhances retention better than mere studying, it is unclear if this benefit depends on the composition of the learning list (pure error generation/read versus mixed). Here, we investigated whether the mnemonic advantage and metamnemonic evaluation of errorful generation generalise beyond mixed-list designs. Experiment 1 used a free-recall test, while Experiments 2 and 3 used a cued-recall test, with Experiment 3 also including a judgment of learning (JOL) assessment. Only when memory was tested via free recall did the benefit of errorful generation depend on experimental design, with the effect being most robust in mixed lists. Replicating past research, we too found that despite a clear mnemonic benefit for error generation in cued-recall tests, participants predicted better memory following read-only trials, and that this effect was not contingent on list composition. At the practical level, these findings demonstrate instances in which errorful generation is beneficial for memory and learning. At the theoretical level, the results fit nicely within the item-order framework in accounting for commonly observed design effects in free recall.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究列表构成对错误生成的记忆作用的影响。
尽管有文献表明,与单纯的学习相比,带有纠正反馈的错误生成能更好地增强记忆,但目前还不清楚这种益处是否取决于学习列表的组成(纯错误生成/阅读与混合)。在此,我们研究了错误生成的记忆优势和元记忆评价是否超越了混合列表设计。实验 1 采用的是自由回忆测试,而实验 2 和实验 3 采用的是提示回忆测试,其中实验 3 还包括学习判断(JOL)评估。只有在通过自由回忆进行记忆测试时,错误生成的益处才取决于实验设计,而在混合列表中效果最为显著。在重复过去研究的基础上,我们还发现,尽管在诱导回忆测试中错误生成对记忆有明显的益处,但参与者在只读测试中预测的记忆效果更好,而且这种效果并不取决于列表的组成。在实践层面上,这些发现证明了错误生成有利于记忆和学习的情况。在理论层面上,这些结果很好地解释了自由回忆中常见的设计效应,符合项目顺序框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Memory
Memory PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
79
期刊介绍: Memory publishes high quality papers in all areas of memory research. This includes experimental studies of memory (including laboratory-based research, everyday memory studies, and applied memory research), developmental, educational, neuropsychological, clinical and social research on memory. By representing all significant areas of memory research, the journal cuts across the traditional distinctions of psychological research. Memory therefore provides a unique venue for memory researchers to communicate their findings and ideas both to peers within their own research tradition in the study of memory, and also to the wider range of research communities with direct interest in human memory.
期刊最新文献
People experience similar intrusions about past and future autobiographical negative experiences. Comparison of working memory performance in athletes and non-athletes: a meta-analysis of behavioural studies. On the role of familiarity and developmental exposure in music-evoked autobiographical memories. Intrinsic functional connectivity in medial temporal lobe networks is associated with susceptibility to misinformation. Cross-cultural comparison of the neural correlates of true and false memory retrieval.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1