Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition最新文献

Although perceived vaccine efficacy is strongly associated with vaccination behavior, little is known about how well laypeople understand what vaccine efficacy rates mean. Three experiments (N=3402) explored errors in how laypeople process numerical information about vaccine efficacy rates and examined the effects of three tutorial interventions designed to bring lay perceptions in line with normative efficacy calculations. Findings indicate that responses to questions about efficacy rate tend to align with normatively correct calculations, whereas responses to questions about the rate of infections indicate an incorrect calculation whereby the post-vaccination risk of infection is assumed to be the efficacy rate subtracted from 100%. Both quantitative and conceptual tutorial interventions helped participants calculate efficacy rates that were more aligned with the normatively correct values and infection rates that were less aligned with the incorrect values, particularly when participants had higher numeracy levels or responded with numeric inputs rather than choices between options.

Imundo et al. (2024) argue that (1) ChatGPT and other chatbots powered by generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI) models can enhance experts' cognition and training, and (2) these benefits are not equally distributed across all users. This commentary commends both arguments. I provide empirical evidence from the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) to show that both statements hold true, not only with ChatGPT, but also with older computational technologies that mimic the behavioral expressions of expertise. By reinforcing Imundo et al. 's arguments, I also argue that now is an opportune time to pursue an even deeper understanding of the relation between ChatGPT and expertise. For instance, how might systems like ChatGPT influence or redefine what it means to be an expert? Rather than distinguishing cognitive, social, and physical expertise, could alternative taxonomies like generative versus evaluative abilities offer more insightful ways to study genAI's cognitive impact?

Real-world decisions require understanding generalities (e.g., sorting an album collection by genre) and the ability to remember specific events (where one acquired a particular album). Discriminating between broad categories versus individual events requires contrasting features at different levels of specificity, and therefore have different representational demands. Here, we used a within-participant design to test the hypothesis that different training protocols (blocked or interleaved order) would have dissociable impacts on representation of generalities and specifics. On each trial, participants viewed a painting from one of twelve artists along with information about its unique location. Category generalization and source memory were tested immediately and after one week. Interleaving enhanced generalization, while blocking improved incidental learning of episodic details. Furthermore, category knowledge remained stable over time, whereas episodic details declined. These results indicate that interleaving and blocking optimize discrimination at different levels of specificity, with differential impacts on inferring generalities and remembering specific events.

Variations in visual perspective in autobiographical memory recall exemplify memory as a malleable and dynamic construct. Research examining variations in vantage point during autobiographical memory retrieval has identified a distinction between first-person (recalling a memory through one's own eyes) and third-person (recalling a memory as an observer) perspectives. In her target article, St. Jacques (2024) reviews the lack of consensus regarding whether memories retrieved from a third-person perspective are considered false memories versus memory distortions. In this commentary, we begin with a brief discussion highlighting the distinction between false and distorted memories. We then present findings derived from secondary data analyses examining the relationship between visual perspective and memory distortions on two different "false memory" measures in (N = 112) participants. Study findings underscore that recalling autobiographical memories with an observer perspective may be a distinct type of memory distortion.