Memory最新文献

A large body of research indicates that testing results in better long-term retention compared to restudying. Given the relevance of such effects for education, there is interest in the conditions and learner differences that may moderate the utility of testing, like background knowledge. It is possible that the testing effect is stronger for those who are more novice, stronger for those who are more experienced, or works equally well for everyone. In four experiments, college students read texts and were tested on them one week later. In Experiments 1, 2A, and 2B, we orthogonally manipulated study strategy (testing versus restudying via reading sentence facts) and availability of background material for a given topic. In Experiment 2B only, participants received feedback when studying via retrieval practice. Experiment 3 employed a mixed design in which each participant used only one strategy or another. Contrary to many past studies, we found an overall testing effect only when feedback was provided. Critically, background topic material benefited overall retention, but we found no evidence that background knowledge moderated the degree of testing benefits. Together, these results suggest that any learning benefits of testing do not depend on having particular levels of existing domain knowledge.

The aftereffects of prospective memory (PM) are a phenomenon by which, after the completion or cancellation of a PM task, the intention remains active. The current study investigates the effect of task difficulty on the aftereffects of PM. In Experiment 1, 132 college students were recruited to explore the effect of ongoing task difficulty on the aftereffects of PM. The results of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the commission error rate under the high-difficulty condition was higher than that under the low-difficulty condition. In Experiment 2, 105 college students were recruited to further investigate the effect of prospective memory task difficulty on the aftereffects of PM. The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the commission error rate under the single cue condition was higher than that under the multiple cues condition. The results of the above two experiments indicate that PM aftereffects are easily influenced by task difficulty, which suggests that the PM aftereffects involve controlled processing. The results of this study tested multiple conflicting theoretical viewpoints, which is beneficial for confirming the processing mechanism of PM aftereffects. This study has been registered and the registration number is ChiCTR2500098910.

Prospective memory (PM) is the ability to remember a delayed intention to perform in a specific future situation. According to the extent to which PM cues overlap with ongoing task processing, PM can be divided into focal PM and non-focal PM. Mindfulness meditation includes focused attention (FA) meditation and open monitoring (OM) meditation. The present study was conducted with 81 participants, using a 3 (group: FA, OM, control group) × 2 (focality: focal, non-focal) design to investigate the effects of FA meditation and OM meditation on PM with focal and non-focal cues. The results showed that there was no difference in the facilitative effects of FA and OM on PM with focal and non-focal cues. Meanwhile, both types of mindfulness meditation improved PM performance by enhancing cue monitoring. The results of this study confirmed the views of preparatory attention processing and memory processing theory. This study has been registered and the registration number is ChiCTR2400094091.

Curiosity, an intrinsic desire to seek new information, benefits motivation and learning. While curiosity is associated with novelty, less is known about how the repetition of a question without its answer affects curiosity and memory. In two experiments, participants viewed 60 trivia questions, half of which were repeated, and rated their curiosity to learn the answers. Repeated questions had their answers revealed during the second presentation, and participants were given a cued-recall test after 24 h. We found that curiosity ratings remained constant across presentations, but when repeated and non-repeated questions were intermixed, participants were more curious about non-repeated questions, which were relatively more novel (Experiment 1). However, when participants guessed answers before studying them (pretesting), they were more curious about repeated questions (Experiment 2). Curiosity ratings also increased across presentations, perhaps reflecting greater cognitive agency motivated by an eagerness to verify one's guess. Overall, the subjective experience of curiosity appears to be influenced by both relative novelty, as manipulated through repetition, and task demands, specifically whether individuals engage in pretesting, indicating that curiosity-based learning is shaped by various cognitive operations.

Although prospective memory (PM) has been studied extensively, relatively little research has addressed errors in different steps of PM performance. The aim of this study was to examine errors occurring in different phases of the microstructure model in PM performance and whether verbalisation can serve in their measurement. We report the results of two experiments in which young adults were divided into experimental and control groups. Both groups solved either a 3-day (Experiment 1) or a 5-day (Experiment 2) version of the Virtual week (VW) task. Experimental groups had to verbalise each PM task before performing it. The results of Experiment 1 showed that verbalisation may prolong the time to execute the task, but in both experiments, verbalisation did not affect the PM performance. In analysing different types of errors, we found that: (1) prospective component errors are more often caused by tasks requiring greater strategic monitoring (only Experiment 1), (2) recall component errors are evident in irregular tasks, and (3) execution errors are more often evidenced in tasks with greater response competition. This confirms that there is a wide range of processes that can lead to PM failures, and verbalisation is one method by which we can detect them.

To create a photo lineup for an eyewitness, police embed the suspect in a group of similar-looking individuals (i.e., fillers). If the witness selects the suspect from these photos of similar-looking people, then this provides evidence they remember the suspect from the crime event. Selecting appropriate fillers is one of the most difficult aspects of lineup construction. In these studies, we explore the feasibility of using artificial intelligence (AI) to generate images of fake people to serve as fillers in a photo lineup. Our results show that people largely fail to detect the differences in a lineup between the real photo of the suspect and the AI-generated fillers. Across different identification outcomes and related decision criteria, we found no evidence of differences between lineups with real and AI-generated fillers. Our study focused on a white, male target and future research is needed to test the generalizability of these findings. We conclude by discussing the feasibility and implications of the use of this technology in police investigations.

We surveyed members of the public and professionals to assess opinions and experiences related to recovered memories in Ireland (N = 675). We found that memory recovery amongst therapy-goers in Ireland is relatively common (8%). Likewise, many practitioners (29%) reported some experience with a client recovering a memory and most had actually recovered a memory themselves. However, both groups struggled with definitions of recovered memories: initially reporting inflated figures (19% & 84%, respectively) that incorporated normal, non-repression-related memory mechanisms. Working therapists and current trainees reported a profound lack of training in this area. We also replicated a previously demonstrated scientist-practitioner divide, where researchers were more likely than practitioners to endorse the fallibility of memory. Though the study related to a sensitive topic, both professionals and members of the public reported enjoying the survey and did not find the questions distressing or ethically problematic - encouraging for future research in this field.

Judgments of Learning (JOLs) have been repeatedly shown to be reactive on memory. However, the specific processes underlying JOL reactivity differ based on the type of stimuli participants study and the method by which their memory is assessed. Recently, item-specific encoding has been proposed as a mechanism explaining JOL reactivity on word list learning. To test this account, participants studied categorised and uncategorised word lists (Experiments 1A/1B) or DRM lists (Experiment 2) while providing item-level JOLs, global JOLs, or silently reading each word. Across experiments, item-level JOLs improved correct memory for all list types but only when recognition testing was used (Experiments 1B and 2). Separately, global JOLs improved free-recall of categorised but not uncategorised lists (Experiment 1A) but were non-reactive on correct recognition (Experiments 1B and 2). Finally, Experiment 2 found that global but not item-level JOLs increased false recognition in the DRM false memory illusion. Taken together, when JOLs are elicited separately for each word, they improve memory via item-specific processes. However, when JOLs emphasise list-wise relations (e.g., global JOLs), reactivity may instead reflect a relational encoding process.

Emotion often enhances memory for emotional stimuli relative to neutral stimuli. This emotional memory enhancement effect has been studied extensively with visual and verbal stimuli, yet little is known regarding emotion's effects on memory for nonverbal (or environmental) sounds, such as dog snarls and infant cries. Additionally, emotion's enhancing effects on recognition for visual and verbal stimuli are selective to recollection (recognition with contextual retrieval) rather than familiarity (recognition based on memory strength), but whether this is also the case for nonverbal sounds is unknown. We examined recognition memory for negative and neutral nonverbal sounds, predicting that memory would be enhanced for negative sounds and this enhancement would be specific to recollection. Participants incidentally encoded negative and neutral sounds, and memory was tested with a remember-familiar recognition memory task after a 15-minute delay. As predicted, recognition memory was enhanced for negative sounds, was better for higher versus lower arousal negative sounds, and was specific to recollection. These findings suggest that key aspects of the emotional enhancement effect also extend to nonverbal sounds. We discuss how current theories of emotional memory which focus on memory for visual and verbal stimuli can be extended to accommodate findings with nonverbal emotional auditory stimuli.