Not all perceptual difficulties lower memory predictions: Testing the perceptual fluency hypothesis with rotated and inverted object images
- 144 Downloads
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.
KeywordsMetamemory Perceptual fluency Judgments of learning (JOLs) Image rotation Image inversion
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.
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034407 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representation: A dual coding approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199336746.013.4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000189 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7318.104.22.168 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar