Not all perceptual difficulties lower memory predictions: Testing the perceptual fluency hypothesis with rotated and inverted object images

  • Miri BeskenEmail author
  • Elif Cemre Solmaz
  • Meltem Karaca
  • Nilsu Atılgan


Studies typically show that perceptual difficulties at the time of encoding lower memory predictions. One potential exception to this is the inverted-word manipulation, in which participants produce equivalent memory predictions for upright and inverted words, despite higher free-recall performance for the inverted words (Sungkhasettee, Friedman, & Castel in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 973–978, 2011). In the present set of experiments, we aimed to investigate the contributions of online perceptual difficulties versus a priori beliefs through two disfluency manipulations conceptually similar to the inverted-word manipulation: inversion and canonicity. The inversion manipulation involved presentation of upright and inverted object images, whereas the canonicity manipulation involved presentation of objects to participants from frequent (canonical) or infrequent (noncanonical) viewing perspectives. Memory predictions were made either on an item-by-item basis or aggregately. In all studies, the perceptual identification latencies for inverted and noncanonical items were slower than those for upright and canonical items, respectively. In experiments conducted with item-by-item memory predictions, predictions were not significantly different from each other across encoding conditions. In contrast, in experiments using aggregate memory predictions, fluent items produced higher memory predictions than did disfluent items. These results show that in certain cases, participants may not consider online objective perceptual difficulties. Moreover, item-by-item and aggregate memory predictions produce different patterns, evidence of a dissociation between the two types of predictions. The results are discussed in light of theories that rely on objective perceptual fluency differences across encoding conditions versus theories that rely on participants’ a priori beliefs about fluency.


Metamemory Perceptual fluency Judgments of learning (JOLs) Image rotation Image inversion 


Author note

This work was conducted for partial fulfillment of senior thesis project requirements for E.C.S., M.K., and N.A. This work was partially funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu) Program Code 2209A—Undergraduate Student Research Support, Grant number 1919B0111601407. Portions of this work were presented at the Psychonomic Society’s 58th Annual Meeting, the 19th Turkish National Psychology Congress, the 4th International Symposium on Brain and Cognitive Science, and the International Conference on Memory 2016.


  1. Begg, I., Vinski, E., Frankovich, L., & Holgate, B. (1991). Generating makes words memorable, but so does effective reading. Memory & Cognition, 19, 487–497. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 Cognition, 42, 1417–1433. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Besken, M., & Mulligan, N. W. (2014). Perceptual fluency, auditory generation, and metamemory: Analyzing the perceptual fluency hypothesis in the auditory modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 429–440. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brodeur, M. B., Dionne-Dostie, E., Montreuil, T., & Lepage, M. (2010). The Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS), a new set of 480 normative photos of objects to be used as visual stimuli in cognitive research. PLoS ONE, 5, 10773. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper, L. A. (1975). Mental rotation of random two-dimensional shapes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 20–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (2000). Updating knowledge about encoding strategies: A componential analysis of learning about strategy effectiveness from task experience. Psychology and Aging, 15, 462–474. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunlosky, J., Mueller, M. K., & Tauber, S. K. (2015). The contribution of subjective fluency and theories of memory to people’s judgments of memory. In D. S. Lindsay, C. M. Kelley, A. P. Yonelinas, & H. L. Roediger III (Eds.), Remembering: Attributions, processes, and control in human memory: Papers in honour of Larry L. Jacoby (pp. 46–63). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gomez, P., Shutter, J., & Rouder, J. N. (2008). Memory for objects in canonical and noncanonical viewpoints. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 940–944. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Humphrey, G. K., & Jolicœur, P. (1993). An examination of the effects of axis foreshortening, monocular depth cues, and visual field on object identification. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 137–159. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jolicœur, P. (1985). The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 13, 289–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kelley, C. M., & Jacoby, L. L. (1996). Adult egocentrism: Subjective experience versus analytic bases for judgment. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 157–175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kinjo, H., & Snodgrass, J. G. (2000). Does the generation effect occur for pictures? American Journal of Psychology, 113, 95–121. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kinoshita, S. (1989). Generation enhances semantic processing? The role of distinctiveness in the generation effect. Memory & Cognition, 17, 563–571. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koriat, A., Bjork, R. A., Sheffer, L., & Bar, S. K. (2004). Predicting one’s own forgetting: The role of experience-based and theory-based processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 643–656. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koriat, A., & Norman, J. (1984). What is rotated in mental rotation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 421–434. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kornell, N., & Hausman, H. (2017). Performance bias: Why judgments of learning are not affected by learning. Memory & Cognition, 45, 1270–1280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kornell, N., Rhodes, M. G., Castel, A. D., & Tauber, S. K. (2011). The ease-of-processing heuristic and the stability bias dissociating memory, memory beliefs, and memory judgments. Psychological Science, 22, 787–794. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kovalenko, L. Y., Chaumon, M., & Busch, N. A. (2012). A pool of pairs of related objects (POPORO) for investigating visual semantic integration: Behavioral and electrophysiological validation. Brain Topography, 25, 272–284. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawson, R., & Humphreys, G. W. (1998). View-specific effects of depth rotation and foreshortening on the initial recognition and priming of familiar objects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 60, 1052–1066. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lawson, R., Humphreys, G. W., Jolicœur, P. (2000) The combined effects of plane disorientation and foreshortening on picture naming: One manipulation or two? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(2):568–581.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. McDaniel, M. A., & Butler, A. C. (2010). A contextual framework for understanding when difficulties are desirable. In A. S. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: Essays in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 175–199). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mintzer, M. Z., & Snodgrass, J. G. (1999). The picture superiority effect: Support for the distinctiveness model. American Journal of Psychology, 112, 113–146. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitchum, A. L., Kelley, C. M., & Fox, M. C. (2016). When asking the question changes the ultimate answer: Metamemory judgments change memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 200–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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 or reflect people’s beliefs about memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 70, 1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mulligan, N. W. (2002). The emergent generation effect and hypermnesia: Influences of semantic and nonsemantic generation tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 541–554. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Nairne, J. S., & Widner, R. L. (1988). Familiarity and lexicality as determinants of the generation effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 694–699. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nelson, D. L., Reed, V. S., & Walling, J. R. (1976). Pictorial superiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 25, 523–528. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newell, F. N., & Findlay, J. M. (1997). The effect of depth rotation on object identification. Perception, 26, 1231–1257. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Paivio, A. (1975). Perceptual comparisons through the mind’s eye. Memory & Cognition, 3, 635–647. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representation: A dual coding approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Rhodes, M. G. (2016). Judgments of learning: Methods, data, and theory. In J. Dunlosky & S. K. Tauber (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 65–80). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592–604. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soderstrom, N. C., Clark, C. T., Halamish, V., & Bjork, E. L. (2015). Judgments of learning as memory modifiers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 553–558. Scholar
  41. Sungkhasettee, V. W., Friedman, M. C., & Castel, A. D. (2011). Memory and metamemory for inverted words: Illusions of competency and desirable difficulties. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 973–978. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Susser, J. A., Jin, A., & Mulligan, N. W. (2016). Identity priming consistently affects perceptual fluency but only affects metamemory when primes are obvious. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 657–662. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Susser, J. A., & Mulligan, N. W. (2015). The effect of motoric fluency on metamemory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1014–1019. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Whittlesea, B. W., & Williams, L. D. (2000). The source of feelings of familiarity: The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 547–565. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (2001a). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feelings and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 3–13. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (2001b). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: II. Expectation, uncertainty, surprise, and feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 14–33. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Yang, C., Huang, T. S. T., & Shanks, D. R. (2018). Perceptual fluency affects judgments of learning: The font size effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 99, 99–110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yue, C. L., Castel, A. D., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). When disfluency is—and is not—a desirable difficulty: The influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory. Memory & Cognition, 41, 229–241. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBilkent UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MassachusettsLowellUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations