Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 106–116 | Cite as

Cognitive load eliminates the effect of perceptual information on judgments of learning with sentences

  • Karlos LunaEmail author
  • Pedro B. Albuquerque
  • Beatriz Martín-Luengo
Article
  • 166 Downloads

Abstract

Items presented in large font are rated with higher judgments of learning (JOLs) than those presented in small font. According to current explanations of this phenomenon in terms of processing fluency or implicit beliefs, this effect should be present no matter the type of material under study. However, we hypothesized that the linguistic cues present in sentences may prevent using font size as a cue for JOLs. Experiment 1, with short sentences, showed the standard font-size effect on JOLs, and Experiment 2, with pairs of longer sentences, showed a reduced effect. These results suggest that linguistic factors do not prevent font size from being used for JOLs. However, Experiment 3, with both short and long sentences, showed an effect of font size only for the former and not the latter condition, suggesting that the greater amount of to-be-remembered information eliminated the font-size effect. In Experiment 4, we tested a mechanism to explain this result and manipulated cognitive load using the dot-memory task. The short sentences from Experiments 1 and 3 were used, and the results replicated the font-size effect only in the low-cognitive load condition. Our results are consistent with the idea that perceptual information is used to make JOLs only with materials such as words, word pairs, or short sentences, and that the increased cognitive load required to process longer sentences prevents using font size as a cue for JOLs.

Keywords

Judgments of learning Font size Sentences Cognitive load 

Supplementary material

13421_2018_853_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (115 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 115 kb)

References

  1. Ball, B. H., Klein, K. N., & Brewer, G. A. (2014). Processing fluency mediates the influence of perceptual information on monitoring learning of educationally relevant materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 336–348.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, K. A., & Dougherty, M. R. (2007). The effect of divided attention on global judgment of learning accuracy. American Journal of Psychology, 120, 347–359.Google Scholar
  3. Beaman, C. P., Hanczakowski, M., & Jones, D. M. (2014). The effects of distraction on metacognition and metacognition on distraction: Evidence from recognition memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjamin, A. (2005). Response speeding mediates the contributions of cue familiarity and target retrievability to metamnemonic judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 874–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Besken, M. (2016). Picture-perfect is not perfect for metamemory: Testing the perceptual fluency hypothesis with degraded images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Condition, 42, 1417–1433.Google Scholar
  6. Besken, M., & Mulligan, N. W. (2013). Easily perceived, easily remembered? Perceptual interference produces a double dissociation between metamemory and memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 41, 897–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bethell-Fox, C., & Shepard, R. N. (1988). Mental rotation: Effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 12–23.Google Scholar
  8. Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17, 428–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunlosky, J., Baker, J. M. C., Rawson, K. A., & Hertzog, C. (2006). Does aging influence people’s metacomprehension? Effects of processing ease on judgments of text learning. Psychology and Aging, 21, 390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frank, D. J., & Kuhlmann, B. G. (2017). More than just beliefs: Experience and beliefs jointly contribute to volume effects on metacognitive judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 680–693.Google Scholar
  12. Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36, 93–103.Google Scholar
  13. Halamish, V. (2018). Can very small size enhance memory? Memory & Cognition, 46, 979–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hsieh, S., & Liu, L. C. (2005). The nature of switch cost: Task set configuration or carry-over effect? Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hu, X., Liu, Z., Li, T., & Luo, L. (2016). Influence of cue word perceptual information on metamemory accuracy in judgment of learning. Memory, 24, 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. JASP Team. (2017). JASP (Version 0.8.1.1) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://jasp-stats.org
  17. Katzir, T., Hershko, S., & Halamish, V. (2013). The effect of font size on reading comprehension on second and fifth grade children: Bigger is not always better. PLoS ONE, 8, e74061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kimball, D. R., Smith, T. A., & Muntean, W. J. (2012). Does delaying judgments of learning really improve the efficacy of study decisions? Not so much Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 923–954.Google Scholar
  19. Li, F., Xie, R., Li, X., & Li, W. (2015). The influence of perceptual information on control processes involved in self-regulating learning: Evidence from item selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1007–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luna, K., Martín-Luengo, B., & Albuquerque, P. B. (2018). Do delayed judgements of learning reduce metamemory illusions? A meta-analysis Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1343362
  21. Luna, K., Martín-Luengo, B., Shtyrov, Y., & Myachykov, A. (2016). Judgments of learning for words in vertical space. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martín-Luengo, B., Luna, K., & Migueles, M. (2013). Memory for radio advertisements: Effects of programme and typicality. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, E80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDonough, I. M., & Gallo, D. A. (2012). Illusory expectations can affect retrieval-monitoring accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 391–404.Google Scholar
  24. Mueller, M. L., & Dunlosky, J. (2017). How beliefs can impact judgments of learning: Evaluating analytic processing theory with beliefs about fluency. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mueller, M. L., Dunlosky, J., & Tauber, S. K. (2016). The effect of identical word pairs on people’s metamemory judgments: What are the contributions of processing fluency and beliefs about memory? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 781–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mueller, M. L., Dunlosky, J., Tauber, S. K., & Rhodes, M. G. (2014). The font-size effect on judgments of learning: Does it exemplify fluency effects of reflect people’s beliefs about memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 70, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Myers, J. L., Shinjo, M., & Duffy, S. A. (1987). Degree of causal relatedness and memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 453–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nelson, T. O., Dunlosky, J., Graf, A., & Narens, L. (1994). Utilization of metacognitive judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning. Psychological Science, 5, 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Price, J., & Harrison, A. (2017). Examining what prestudy and immediate judgments of learning reveal about the bases of metamemory judgments. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 615–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2009). Metacognitive illusions for auditory information: Effects on monitoring and control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 550–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sacher, M., Taconnat, L., Souchay, C., & Isingrini, M. (2009). Divided attention at encoding: Effect on feeling-of-knowing. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 754–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sassenberg, K., Moskowitz, G. B., Jacoby, J., & Hansen, N. (2007). The carry-over effect of competition: The impact of competition on prejudice towards uninvolved outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 529–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Soares, A. P., Iriarte, A., Almeida, J. J., Simões, A., Costa, A., França, P., Machado, J., & Comesaña, M. (2014). Procura-PALavras (P-PAL): Uma nova medida de frequência lexical do Português Europeu contemporâneo [Procura-PALavras (P-PAL): A new measure of word frequency for contemporary European Portuguese]. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 27, 1–14. Retrieved from http://p-pal.di.uminho.pt Google Scholar
  35. Susser, J. A., Mulligan, N. W., & Besken, M. (2013). The effects of list composition and perceptual fluency on judgments of learning (JOLs). Memory & Cognition, 41, 1000–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trémolière, B., Gagnon, M. E., & Blanchette, I. (2016). Cognitive load mediates the effect of emotion on analytical thinking. Experimental Psychology, 63, 343–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Undorf, M., & Erdfelder, E. (2011). Judgments of learning reflect encoding fluency: Conclusive evidence for the ease-of-processing hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1264–1269.Google Scholar
  38. Undorf, M., & Erdfelder, E. (2015). The relatedness effect on judgments of learning: A closer look at the contribution of processing fluency. Memory & Cognition, 43, 647–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Undorf, M., Söllner, A., & Bröder, A. (2018). Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning. Memory & Cognition, 46, 507–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Undorf, M., & Zimdahl, M. F. (2018). Metamemory and memory for a wide range of font sizes: What is the contribution of perceptual fluency? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000571
  41. Undorf, M., Zimdahl, M. F., & Bernstein, D. M. (2017). Perceptual fluency contributes to effects of stimulus size on judgments of learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yan, V. X., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2016). Difficulty of mending metacognitive illusions: A priory theories, fluency effects, and misattributions of the interleaving benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 918–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karlos Luna
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pedro B. Albuquerque
    • 1
  • Beatriz Martín-Luengo
    • 2
  1. 1.Psychology Research Centre, School of PsychologyUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal
  2. 2.Centre for Cognition and Decision Making, (School of Psychology)National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations