Subjects: Psychology >> Other Disciplines of Psychology submitted time 2024-05-27
Abstract： Judgments of learning (JOLs) refer to learners’ subjective predictions of whether they can successfully extract what they have learned on future tests. Face memory is an important foundation for acquiring information during social interactions and ensuring that social activities are carried out properly. Emotion and attractiveness are two important cues that influence JOLs of face memory. In reality, emotion and attractiveness often appear simultaneously in the same face. However, previous studies have only examined the effects of the two cues on JOLs individually, and have not deeply explored the effects of the integration of the two cues on the accuracy of JOLs and their mechanisms./t/nThe present study first explored the proportion of the number of emotional and attractive cue integrators. Then, we increased the gradient of each level of the attractiveness cue in Experiment 1, and utilized a mixed experimental design of 2 (group: cue-integrated group, non-cue-integrated group) × 3 (emotional cue: high-intensity, medium-intensity, and low-intensity) × 3 (attractiveness cue: high-intensity, medium-intensity, and low-intensity) to explore whether the cue-integration could improve face memory and the accuracy of JOLs. In Experiment 2, in order to further improve the sensitivity of the subjects to the two cues, the mixed experimental design was changed to 2 (group: cue-integration group, non-cue-integration group) × 2 (emotional cues: high intensity, low intensity) × 2 (attraction cues: high intensity, low intensity), and the EEG was used to investigate the temporal characteristics of cue-integration in promoting the accuracy of JOLs./t/nFindings: (1) Subjects integrated both emotion and attraction cues for JOLs ratings(the pre-experiment). (2) Integrating emotional and attractiveness cues improved the accuracy of JOLs (Experiment 1). (3) The group that integrated cues had a higher amplitude of late positive waves (LPP) in the parietal region during the encoding stage and late negative waves (NSW) in the frontal region during the JOLs stage compared to the group that did not integrate cues. Additionally, the amplitudes of NSW and LPP in the cue-integrated group were significantly correlated with the accuracy of JOLs(Experiment 2). The study found that individuals who integrated emotion and attractiveness cues during the encoding stage were better able to allocate cognitive resources for cognitive assessment and retain information in the JOLs stage. This led to more accurate monitoring of their own face memory. The study suggests that integrating two cues can improve cognitive performance./t/nThis study offers a foundation for individuals to comprehend the impact of cue integration on memory and metamemory in real-world face learning scenarios. It also aids in the development of effective learning plans and strategies, as well as precise monitoring of the learning process.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology submitted time 2024-05-09
Abstract： Judgments of learning (JOLs) refer to learners’ subjective predictions of whether they can successfully extract what they have learned on future tests. Face memory is an important foundation for acquiring information during social interactions and ensuring that social activities are carried out properly. Emotion and attractiveness are two important cues that influence JOLs of face memory. In reality, emotion and attractiveness often appear simultaneously in the same face. However, previous studies have only examined the effects of the two cues on JOLs individually, and have not deeply explored the effects of the integration of the two cues on the accuracy of JOLs and their mechanisms./t/nThe present study first explored the proportion of the number of emotional and attractive cue integrators. Then, we increased the gradient of each level of the attractiveness cue in Experiment 1, and utilized a mixed experimental design of 2 (group: cue-integrated group, non-cue-integrated group) × 3 (emotional cue: high-intensity, medium-intensity, and low-intensity) × 3 (attractiveness cue: high-intensity, medium-intensity, and low-intensity) to explore whether the cue-integration could improve face memory and the accuracy of JOLs. In Experiment 2, in order to further improve the sensitivity of the subjects to the two cues, the mixed experimental design was changed to 2 (group: cue-integration group, non-cue-integration group) × 2 (emotional cues: high intensity, low intensity) × 2 (attraction cues: high intensity, low intensity), and the EEG was used to investigate the temporal characteristics of cue-integration in promoting the accuracy of JOLs./t/nFindings: (1) Subjects integrated both emotion and attraction cues for JOLs ratings(the pre-experiment). (2) Integrating emotional and attractiveness cues improved the accuracy of JOLs (Experiment 1). (3) The group that integrated cues had a higher amplitude of late positive waves (LPP) in the parietal region during the encoding stage and late negative waves (NSW) in the frontal region during the JOLs stage compared to the group that did not integrate cues. Additionally, the amplitudes of NSW and LPP in the cue-integrated group were significantly correlated with the accuracy of JOLs(Experiment 2). The study found that individuals who integrated emotion and attractiveness cues during the encoding stage were better able to allocate cognitive resources for cognitive assessment and retain information in the JOLs stage. This led to more accurate monitoring of their own face memory. The study suggests that integrating two cues can improve cognitive performance./t/nThis study offers a foundation for individuals to comprehend the impact of cue integration on memory and metamemory in real-world face learning scenarios. It also aids in the development of effective learning plans and strategies, as well as precise monitoring of the learning process.
Peer Review Status:Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Metamemory monitoring is a process in which individuals subjectively evaluate or judge the memory process and state, and the common indicator is judgments of learning (JOLs). Metamemory control is the regulation and control of memory processes carried out on the basis of metamemory monitoring, and the study time allocation during self-paced learning is a central component of metamemory control. According to Agenda-Based Regulation Model (ABR), individuals in the learning process will comprehensively analyze various factors such as task objectives, task constraints to construct the learning agenda, which is used to prioritize the study items and the amount of time needed to study. However, the main concern of the previous studies is the value presented as a reward outcome (reward obtained after successfully memory), leading to a lack of valid examination of whether reward expectation (prediction of reward outcome) affects the agenda construction and memory performance. Therefore, the aim of this study was to supplement the reward expectation into the ABR model by verifying whether a sufficiently high reward expectation can replace difficulty with exerting a dominant influence on JOLs and time allocation in an agenda construction.Experiment 1 added a control group on the basis of Soderstrom and McCabe's (2011) to examine the effect of reward expectation and difficulty on JOLs and memory rates under a time limited learning condition by presenting the reward posteriorly. Experiment 2, which abolished the limited time learning to self-paced learning, was designed to examine the effect of reward expectation and difficulty on the study time allocation. To go a step further, Experiment 3 controlled reward expectation in the test by manipulating the value gradient, and was designed to examine the effect of the size of the gradient of reward expectation.The current study found that: (1) under the limited time learning condition in Experiment 1, reward outcomes facilitated the memory performance and JOLs of both easy and hard word pairs, and reward expectation only improved the memory performance of easy word pairs without significant effects on JOLs. (2) in self-paced learning in Experiment 2, reward outcome only affected the JOLs rather than memory performance, but reward expectation promoted both JOLs and study time allocation thus improving the memory performance, what’s more, JOLs and study time allocation of hard word pairs in condition with reward expectation are higher than with no reward. (3) in self-paced learning in Experiment 3, the influence of difficulty on study time not significant any more, reward expectation beyond difficulty becomes the main factor affecting the study time allocation. The above results proved that reward expectation is a contributing factor in ABR model. Individuals synthesize reward expectation, reward outcome and difficulty while constructing a learning agenda, and reward expectation overrides difficulty as the dominant factor in agenda construction when it is sufficiently large. However, the effects of reward expectation and reward outcome on memory performance, study time allocation, and JOLs were modulated by the learning conditions.
Hits
Hits
Downloads
Comment