I remember it now, so I'll remember it later: Working memory strength guides predictions for long-term memory performance.

Judgments of learning (JOLs) are assumed to be made inferentially, based on cues. This cue-utilization approach substituted the theory that memory strength guides JOLs. The rejection of this theory ignores the existence of two memory systems: working memory (WM), which holds representations immediately accessible, and long-term memory (LTM), which is a permanent store. By manipulating and measuring WM strength, we tested a revised version of the memory-strength theory in which JOLs are guided by WM representations. In Experiment 1, participants memorized sequences of two or four colored objects, then they provided JOLs for an LTM test of these objects, and performed a WM test on the objects' colors. After learning 200 objects, the LTM test followed. Sequence-length affected WM, but not LTM performance. JOLs, however, were higher for sequences of two than for four objects and correlated higher with WM than LTM performance. We replicated these results with a simultaneous presentation of the objects (Experiment 2), in the absence of a WM test (Experiment 3), and in a word-pair task (Experiment 4). Overall, our findings are consistent with the revised memory-strength theory. WM strength should therefore be considered when examining the factors guiding JOLs.

When do we know that we do not know? An examination of metacognitive processes in visual working memory.

This work investigates how people make judgments about the content of their visual working memory (VWM). Some studies on long-term memory suggest that people base those metacognitive judgments on the outcome of a retrieval attempt. In contrast, Son and Metcalfe (2005) observed that people identify poorly remembered items immediately, presumably by the lack of familiarity for the retrieval cue. We tested these two hypotheses in the context of metacognition in VWM. In three experiments, we investigated participants' response behavior in a color reproduction task with a hidden color wheel. With this procedure, participants must search for the intended response, starting from a random color. We assumed that instant awareness of the inability to retrieve an information would be reflected in selecting the first, random color, rather than search for a particular color in the wheel. Although participants provided a substantial number of low-confidence responses, results of an adapted mixture modeling analysis yielded little evidence for quick guesses. Rather, participants consistently searched for a color (even with unfamiliar retrieval cues in Experiment 2), and only quickly guessed when being cued with objects at test that were not previously presented (Experiment 3). We conclude that people usually engage in retrieval attempts for providing judgments about their VWM, even when information is poorly remembered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Why do people overestimate the effectiveness of blocked learning?

Interleaved learning has been shown to be better for delayed memory performance than blocked learning. Nevertheless, people judge blocked learning to be more effective. In the present work, we tested different explanations for this metacognitive bias. Across three experiments, participants studied sequences of object-color associations for a final color-reproduction test. In Experiment 1, colors of a sequence were selected from one color category (blocked-study condition) or distinct color categories (interleaved-study condition). Participants gave higher judgements of learning (JOLs) for objects studied in the blocked condition, although performance was better for objects in the interleaved condition. In Experiment 2, participants' immediate memory performance after each sequence was additionally measured. JOLs were again higher for objects in the blocked condition, and they mimicked participants' immediate memory performance suggesting a link between participants' evaluations of the learning strategies and their immediate memory effects. In Experiment 3, the objects of one sequence were either grouped by category (blocked-study condition) or derived from distinct categories (interleaved-study condition). Neither JOLs, nor immediate performance was affected by this manipulation of blocked learning, speaking against the possibility that people prefer blocked learning because of habit only. We conclude that people overestimate the effectiveness of blocked learning due to the immediate memory boost caused by blocked learning and not due to their previously acquired habit to study in blocks. This study provides insights into how people evaluate the effectiveness of learning strategies and why these evaluations are not always accurate.