研究预期测试形式和测试难度对思维游移频率和记忆成本的影响。

IF 1.5 3区 心理学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-21 DOI:10.1177/17470218231187892
Skylar J Laursen, Jeffrey D Wammes, Chris M Fiacconi
{"title":"研究预期测试形式和测试难度对思维游移频率和记忆成本的影响。","authors":"Skylar J Laursen, Jeffrey D Wammes, Chris M Fiacconi","doi":"10.1177/17470218231187892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mind wandering, generally defined as task-unrelated thought, has been shown to constitute between 30% and 50% of individuals' thoughts during almost every activity in which they are engaged. Critically, however, previous research has shown that the demands of a given task can lead to either the up- or down-regulation of mind wandering and that engagement in mind wandering may be differentially detrimental to future memory performance depending on learning conditions. The goal of the current research was to gain a better understanding of how the circumstances surrounding a learning episode affect the frequency with which individuals engage in off-task thought, and the extent to which these differences differentially affect memory performance across different test formats. Specifically, while prior work has manipulated the conditions of encoding, we focused on the anticipated characteristics of the retrieval task, thereby examining whether the anticipation of later demands imposed by the expected test format/difficulty would influence the frequency or performance costs of mind wandering during encoding. Across three experiments, we demonstrate that the anticipation of future test demands, as modelled by expected test format/difficulty, does not affect rates of mind wandering. However, the costs associated with mind wandering do appear to scale with the difficulty of the test. These findings provide important new insights into the impact of off-task thought on future memory performance and constrain our understanding of the strategic regulation of inattention in the context of learning and memory.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1068-1092"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11032633/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining the effect of expected test format and test difficulty on the frequency and mnemonic costs of mind wandering.\",\"authors\":\"Skylar J Laursen, Jeffrey D Wammes, Chris M Fiacconi\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470218231187892\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Mind wandering, generally defined as task-unrelated thought, has been shown to constitute between 30% and 50% of individuals' thoughts during almost every activity in which they are engaged. Critically, however, previous research has shown that the demands of a given task can lead to either the up- or down-regulation of mind wandering and that engagement in mind wandering may be differentially detrimental to future memory performance depending on learning conditions. The goal of the current research was to gain a better understanding of how the circumstances surrounding a learning episode affect the frequency with which individuals engage in off-task thought, and the extent to which these differences differentially affect memory performance across different test formats. Specifically, while prior work has manipulated the conditions of encoding, we focused on the anticipated characteristics of the retrieval task, thereby examining whether the anticipation of later demands imposed by the expected test format/difficulty would influence the frequency or performance costs of mind wandering during encoding. Across three experiments, we demonstrate that the anticipation of future test demands, as modelled by expected test format/difficulty, does not affect rates of mind wandering. However, the costs associated with mind wandering do appear to scale with the difficulty of the test. These findings provide important new insights into the impact of off-task thought on future memory performance and constrain our understanding of the strategic regulation of inattention in the context of learning and memory.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1068-1092\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11032633/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231187892\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231187892","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

思绪游移一般被定义为与任务无关的思维,几乎在每个人从事的活动中,思绪游移都会占到30%到50%。然而,至关重要的是,以往的研究表明,特定任务的要求会导致思维游离的上调或下调,而且思维游离可能会根据学习条件的不同而对未来的记忆表现产生不同程度的损害。当前研究的目的是为了更好地了解围绕学习事件的环境如何影响个体进行任务外思维的频率,以及这些差异在多大程度上影响了不同测试形式下的记忆表现。具体来说,之前的研究操纵的是编码条件,而我们关注的是检索任务的预期特征,从而研究预期的测试形式/难度所带来的日后需求是否会影响编码期间思维游离的频率或成绩成本。通过三项实验,我们证明,以预期测试形式/难度为模型的对未来测试要求的预期并不会影响思维游移的发生率。然而,与思维游移相关的成本似乎确实会随着测试难度的增加而增加。这些发现为我们了解任务外思维对未来记忆表现的影响提供了重要的新见解,并限制了我们对学习和记忆中注意力不集中的策略调节的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Examining the effect of expected test format and test difficulty on the frequency and mnemonic costs of mind wandering.

Mind wandering, generally defined as task-unrelated thought, has been shown to constitute between 30% and 50% of individuals' thoughts during almost every activity in which they are engaged. Critically, however, previous research has shown that the demands of a given task can lead to either the up- or down-regulation of mind wandering and that engagement in mind wandering may be differentially detrimental to future memory performance depending on learning conditions. The goal of the current research was to gain a better understanding of how the circumstances surrounding a learning episode affect the frequency with which individuals engage in off-task thought, and the extent to which these differences differentially affect memory performance across different test formats. Specifically, while prior work has manipulated the conditions of encoding, we focused on the anticipated characteristics of the retrieval task, thereby examining whether the anticipation of later demands imposed by the expected test format/difficulty would influence the frequency or performance costs of mind wandering during encoding. Across three experiments, we demonstrate that the anticipation of future test demands, as modelled by expected test format/difficulty, does not affect rates of mind wandering. However, the costs associated with mind wandering do appear to scale with the difficulty of the test. These findings provide important new insights into the impact of off-task thought on future memory performance and constrain our understanding of the strategic regulation of inattention in the context of learning and memory.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling. QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form. The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.
期刊最新文献
Reasoning in social versus non-social domains and its relation to autistic traits. When is a causal illusion an illusion? Separating discriminability and bias in human contingency judgements. Advancing an account of hierarchical dual-task control: A focused review on abstract higher-level task representations in dual-task situations. The effect of chronic academic stress on attentional bias towards value-associated stimuli. Is the precedence of social re-orienting only inherent to the initiators?
×
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