Morris Goldsmith

Memory in naturalistic and laboratory contexts: distinguishing the accuracy-oriented and quantity-oriented approaches to memory assessment.

A distinction is drawn between the quantity-oriented approach to memory that has dominated traditional laboratory research, and the accuracy-oriented approach that is emerging in the study of everyday memory. This distinction is shown to underlie some troubling confusions in the interpretation of empirical findings. In particular, the recall-recognition paradox, which involves the claimed superiority of recall over recognition memory in naturalistic settings, is shown to stem from the common confounding between memory property (quantity vs. accuracy) and 2 other variables that have not generally been distinguished--test format (production vs. selection) and report option (free vs. forced reporting). Three laboratory experiments reveal the fundamentally different roles played by report option and test format in accuracy-based and quantity-based memory research. Implications for memory assessment, metamemory, and the everyday-laboratory controversy are discussed.

Memory metaphors and the real-life/laboratory controversy: Correspondence versus storehouse conceptions of memory

The study of memory is witnessing a spirited clash between proponents of traditional laboratory research and those advocating a more naturalistic approach to the study of “real-life” or “everyday” memory. The debate has generally centered on the “what” (content), “where” (context), and “how” (methods) of memory research. In this target article, we argue that the controversy discloses a further, more fundamental breach between two underlying memory metaphors, each having distinct implications for memory theory and assessment: Whereas traditional memory research has been dominated by the storehouse metaphor, leading to a focus on the number of items remaining in store and accessible to memory, the recent wave of everyday memory research has shifted toward a correspondence metaphor, focusing on the accuracy of memory in representing past events. The correspondence metaphor calls for a research approach that differs from the traditional one in important respects: in emphasizing the intentional –representational function of memory, in addressing the wholistic and graded aspects of memory correspondence, in taking an output-bound assessment perspective, and in allowing more room for the operation of subject-controlled metamemory processes and motivational factors. This analysis can help tie together soine of the what, where, and how aspects of the “real-life/laboratory” controversy. More important, however, by explicating the unique metatheoretical foundation of the accuracy-oriented approach to memory we aim to promote a more effective exploitation of the correspondence metaphor in both naturalistic and laboratory research contexts.

Metacognitive regulation of text learning: on screen versus on paper.

Despite immense technological advances, learners still prefer studying text from printed hardcopy rather than from computer screens. Subjective and objective differences between on-screen and on-paper learning were examined in terms of a set of cognitive and metacognitive components, comprising a Metacognitive Learning Regulation Profile (MLRP) for each study media. Participants studied expository texts of 1000-1200 words in one of the two media and for each text they provided metacognitive prediction-of-performance judgments with respect to a subsequent multiple-choice test. Under fixed study time (Experiment 1), test performance did not differ between the two media, but when study time was self-regulated (Experiment 2) worse performance was observed on screen than on paper. The results suggest that the primary differences between the two study media are not cognitive but rather metacognitive--less accurate prediction of performance and more erratic study-time regulation on screen than on paper. More generally, this study highlights the contribution of metacognitive regulatory processes to learning and demonstrates the potential of the MLRP methodology for revealing the source of subjective and objective differences in study performance among study conditions.

Strategic regulation of grain size in memory reporting.

To increase their report accuracy, rememberers may either withhold information that they feel unsure about or provide relatively coarse information that is unlikely to be wrong. In previous work (A. Koriat & M. Goldsmith, 1996c), the authors delineated the metacognitive monitoring and control processes underlying the decision to volunteer or withhold particular items of information (report option) and examined how these processes are used in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. This article adapts that framework to address control over the grain size (precision-coarseness) of the information that people report. Results show that rememberers strategically regulate the grain of their answers to accommodate the competing goals of accuracy and informativeness. The metacognitive processes underlying this regulation are elucidated.

Modulation of object-based attention by spatial focus under endogenous and exogenous orienting.

In R. Egly, J. Driver, and R. D. Rafals (1994) influential double-rectangle spatial-cuing paradigm, exogenous cues consistently induce object-based attention, whereas endogenous cues generally induce space-based attention. This difference suggests an interdependency between mode of orienting (endogenous vs exogenous) and mode of selection (object based vs space based). However, mode of orienting is generally confounded with initial focus of attention: Endogenous orienting begins with attention focused on a central cue, whereas exogenous orienting begins with attention widely spread. In this study, an attentional-focusing hypothesis is examined and supported by experiments showing that for both endogenous and exogenous cuing, object-based effects are obtained under conditions that encourage spread attention, but they are attenuated under conditions that encourage focused attention. General implications for object-based attention are discussed. ((c) 2003 APA, all rights reserved)

WHAT'S IN A LOCATION? COMPARING OBJECT-BASED AND SPACE-BASED MODELS OF FEATURE INTEGRATION IN VISUAL SEARCH

What is the unit of selection for feature integration in visual search: location or perceptual object? Feature integration theory (A. Treisman, 1988) asserts that it is location. Two alternative models are put forward and tested in a series of 4 experiments using a special conjunctivesearch task. In this task, each stimulus item consists of 2 overlapping forms (perceptual objects). In general, the search was more efficient when the search features were linked to the same perceptual object than when they were linked to different perceptual objects at the same stimulus location. This same-object advantage, however, was shown to depend on stimulus discriminability and density, grouping strength, and hierarchical object structure. The results support a hierarchical object-based model, with important implications for feature integration, visual search, late versus early selection, and object-based versus space-based views of attention.

The Strategic Regulation Of Memory Accuracy And Informativeness

Publisher Summary The central thesis of this chapter is that particularly in real-life situations, but also to some extent in the laboratory, rememberers strategically regulate the quality and amount of information that they report from memory in accordance with two generally competing goals: Accuracy and informativeness. The work described in this chapter is predicated on the view that the strategic regulation of memory performance is an intrinsic aspect of everyday remembering. The desire to capture the full richness of real-world memory phenomena, however, is often at odds with the desire to bring the phenomena into the laboratory for controlled experimental investigation. This chapter tries to reach an expedient compromise that offers the benefits of experimental tools and rigor, while still tapping some of the fundamental features of the strategic regulation of memory performance in real-world settings.

Memory accuracy in old age: Cognitive, metacognitive, and neurocognitive determinants

Age differences in memory accuracy were examined within a conceptual framework specifying the mediating role of metacognitive monitoring and control processes (Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996b). Replicating previous results, older adults showed poorer memory quantity and accuracy performance compared to young adults. Even when memory quantity performance was equated, by dividing the young adults’ attention during encoding, the difference in memory accuracy was not eliminated. Examination of the underlying metacognitive processes revealed that the age-related reduction in memory accuracy stemmed partly from less effective memory monitoring, apparently the result of poorer encoding, and also from differences in two aspects of metacognitive control: (1) a more liberal report criterion—greater tendency to volunteer incorrect (and correct) answers, and (2) reduced control sensitivity—less reliance on subjective monitoring as a basis for responding. This latter control reduction was associated with lower neuropsychological measures of executive functioning, suggesting a decline in frontal-lobe efficiency.

Source-constrained recall: front-end and back-end control of retrieval quality.

Research on the strategic regulation of memory accuracy has focused primarily on monitoring and control processes used to edit out incorrect information after it is retrieved (back-end control). Recent studies, however, suggest that rememberers also enhance accuracy by preventing the retrieval of incorrect information in the first place (front-end control). The present study put forward and examined a mechanism called source-constrained recall (cf. Jacoby, Shimizu, Velanova, & Rhodes, 2005) by which rememberers process and use recall cues in qualitatively different ways, depending on the manner of original encoding. Results of 2 experiments in which information about source encoding depth was made available at test showed that when possible, participants constrained recall to the solicited targets by reinstating the original encoding operations on the recall cues. This reinstatement improved the quality of the information that came to mind, which, together with improved postretrieval monitoring, enhanced actual recall performance.

Is object-based attention mandatory? Strategic control over mode of attention.

Is object-based attention mandatory or under strategic control? In an adapted spatial cuing paradigm, participants focused initially on a central arrow cue that was part of a perceptual group (Experiment 1) or a uniformly connected object (Experiment 2), encompassing one of the potential target locations. The cue always pointed to an opposite, different-object location. By varying cue validity, the strategic incentive to prevent the spread of attention to the entire cue object, and consequently to the same-object location, was manipulated: With invalid cuing and (consequently) equal probability of targets at same-object and different-object locations, a same-object target identification advantage was observed. With highly valid cuing and targets much more probable at the different-object location than at the same-object location, the same-object advantage disappeared. Object-based attention appears to be a default mode that may be ecologically adaptive but can be overridden by strategic control when there is a strong immediate benefit in doing so.