Top

Gepubliceerd in:

10-09-2015 | Original Article

Improved memory for error feedback

Auteurs: Liesbet Van der Borght, Nathalie Schouppe, Wim Notebaert

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2016

Abstract

Surprising feedback in a general knowledge test leads to an improvement in memory for both the surface features and the content of the feedback (Psychon Bull Rev 16:88–92, 2009). Based on the idea that in cognitive tasks, error is surprising (the orienting account, Cognition 111:275–279, 2009), we tested whether error feedback would be better remembered than correct feedback. Colored words were presented as feedback signals in a flanker task, where the color indicated the accuracy. Subsequently, these words were again presented during a recognition task (Experiment 1) or a lexical decision task (Experiments 2 and 3). In all experiments, memory was improved for words seen as error feedback. These results are compared to the attentional boost effect (J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 39:1223–12231, 2013) and related to the orienting account for post-error slowing (Cognition 111:275–279, 2009).

vorige artikel On the three-quarter view advantage of familiar object recognition

volgende artikel Generation and the subjective feeling of “aha!” are independently related to learning from insight

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

However, note that for these analyses we could not control for differences in word characteristics (such as frequency, number of neighbors and length) between words seen on congruent and incongruent trials.

Albrecht, T., & Vorberg, D. (2010). Long-lasting effects of briefly flashed words and pseudowords in ultrarapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1339–1345. doi:10.1037/a0019999.CrossRefPubMed

Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.CrossRef

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2013). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4., R package version 1.0–5. http://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4.

Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624.CrossRefPubMed

Bouret, S., & Sara, S. J. (2005). Network reset: a simplified overarching theory of locus coeruleus noradrenaline function. Trends in Neurosciences, 28(11), 574–582. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2005.09.002.CrossRefPubMed

Butterfield, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2006). The correction of errors committed with high confidence. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 69–84. doi:10.1007/s11409-006-6894-z.CrossRef

Carver, C., & White, T. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333.CrossRef

Coane, J. H., & Balota, D. A. (2010). Repetition priming across distinct contexts: effects of lexical status, word frequency, and retrieval test. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 63(12), 2376–98. doi:10.1080/17470211003687546.

Danielmeier, C., & Ullsperger, M. (2011). Post-error adjustments. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 233. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00233.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Duyck, W., Desmet, T., Verbeke, L. P. C., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). WordGen: a tool for word selection and nonword generation in Dutch, English, German, and French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 488–499.CrossRef

Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149. doi:10.3758/BF03203267.CrossRef

Ernst, B., & Steinhauser, M. (2012). Feedback-related brain activity predicts learning from feedback in multiple-choice testing. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12, 323–336. doi:10.3758/s13415-012-0087-9.CrossRef

Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2009). Surprising feedback improves later memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 88–92. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.1.88.CrossRef

Franken, I. H. A., Muris, P., & Rassin, E. (2005). Psychometric Properties of the Dutch BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27(1), 25–30. doi:10.1007/s10862-005-3262-2.CrossRef

Hermans, D., & Houwer, J. De. (1994). Affective and subjective familiarity ratings of 740 Dutch words. Psychologica Belgica, 34, 115–139.

Houtman, F., & Notebaert, W. (2013). Blinded by an error. Cognition, 128(2), 228–236. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.04.003.CrossRefPubMed

Houtman, F., Núñez Castellar, E., & Notebaert, W. (2012). Orienting to errors with and without immediate feedback. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(3), 278–285. doi:10.1080/20445911.2011.617301.CrossRef

Kenward, M. G., & Roger, J. H. (1997). Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics, 53(3), 983–997.CrossRefPubMed

Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Wuggy: a multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 627–633. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.3.627.CrossRefPubMed

Keuleers, E., Diependaele, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Practice effects in large-scale visual word recognition studies: a lexical decision study on 14,000 dutch mono- and disyllabic words and nonwords. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(November), 174. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00174.PubMedPubMedCentral

Krebs, R. M., Boehler, C. N., De Belder, M., & Egner, T. (2013). Neural Conflict-Control Mechanisms Improve Memory for Target Stimuli. Cerebral Cortex,. doi:10.1093/cercor/bht283.PubMedCentral

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163–203. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.109.2.163.CrossRefPubMed

Macmillan, N., & Creelman, C. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Mawah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Notebaert, W., Houtman, F., Van Opstal, F., Gevers, W., Fias, W., & Verguts, T. (2009). Post-error slowing: an orienting account. Cognition, 111, 275–279. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.002.CrossRefPubMed

Núñez Castellar, E., Kühn, S., Fias, W., & Notebaert, W. (2010). Outcome expectancy and not accuracy determines posterior slowing: ERP support. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10(2), 270–278. doi:10.3758/CABN.10.2.270.CrossRef

Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128–2148. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Simons, R. F., Graham, F. K., Miles, M. A., & Chen, X. (2001). On the relationship of P3a and the Novelty-P3. Biological Psychology, 56, 207–218.CrossRefPubMed

Spataro, P., Mulligan, N. W., & Rossi-Arnaud, C. (2013). Divided attention can enhance memory encoding: the attentional boost effect in implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1223–12231. doi:10.1037/a0030907.CrossRefPubMed

Steinborn, M. B., Flehmig, H. C., Bratzke, D., & Schröter, H. (2012). Error reactivity in self-paced performance: Highly-accurate individuals exhibit largest post-error slowing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(4), 624–631. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.660962.CrossRef

Stevens, M., Lammertyn, J., Verbruggen, F., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS windows platform. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 280–286.CrossRefPubMed

Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V. (2010). The Attentional Boost Effect: Transient increases in attention to one task enhance performance in a second task. Cognition, 115(1), 118–132. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V. (2011). The role of timing in the attentional boost effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(2), 389–404. doi:10.3758/s13414-010-0045-y.CrossRef

Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V. (2012). Goal-relevant events need not be rare to boost memory for concurrent images. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(1), 70–82. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0227-2.CrossRef

Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., Swallow, K. M., Braver, T. S., & Reynolds, J. R. (2007). Event perception: a mind-brain perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 273–293. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.273.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Improved memory for error feedback
Auteurs: Liesbet Van der Borght
Nathalie Schouppe
Wim Notebaert
Publicatiedatum: 10-09-2015
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0705-6

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2016

Keep calm! Gender differences in mental rotation performance are modulated by habitual expressive suppression

Stimulus–response correspondence in go–nogo and choice tasks: Are reactions altered by the presence of an irrelevant salient object?

Trait self-control is predicted by how reward associations modulate Stroop interference

Attentional biases in ruminators and worriers

Attention to future actions: the influence of instructed S-R versus S-S mappings on attentional control

On the three-quarter view advantage of familiar object recognition