Browsing by Subject "Metamemory"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Is metamemory implicit? evidence of priming and antipriming in individuals with and without traumatic brain injury.
    (2009-07) Ramanathan, Pradeep
    Implicit memory refers to the phenomenon of prior exposure to a stimulus influencing cognitive processing on subsequent exposure to that stimulus, irrespective of one's awareness of such influence. Metamemory refers to the presumably explicit act of making judgments about one's memory. Theories vary regarding possible relationships between implicit memory and metamemory, with mixed findings of previous research. Some researchers argue that there is no relationship, that metamemory does not rely on input from implicit memory only on explicit memory (Hart, 1965; Koriat, 1995), while others argue that metamemory is driven only by implicit processes (Reder & Schunn, 1996). Still others argue that the metamemory system relies on input from both implicit and explicit memory (Vernon & Usher, 2003). To date, no study has examined whether subliminal masked priming and antipriming can influence individuals' metamemory judgments of learning (JOLs). The present study independently varies subliminal masked priming conditions (using baseline, prime, and antiprime conditions) and observes the influence on participants' immediate and delayed JOLs and relative predictive accuracy, in a paired associate learning task. This study also examines long term repetition priming and antipriming (measured in a visual object identification task) to determine whether the magnitudes of these effects correlate with those found in the paired associate learning task. Both neurologically normal individuals and those with traumatic brain injury (TBI) participated in this study. Metamemory deficits are common after TBI. Thus, inclusion of this clinical population in the present study is critical in evaluating whether or not such individuals' metamemory judgments can be influenced by, or correlated with, priming or antipriming. Furthermore, to date, no study has examined antipriming among TBI survivors; therefore their participation in the visual object identification task will shed light on antipriming in that population, and will provide a perceptual implicit memory benchmark against which to compare any findings of implicit metamemory. Results demonstrate no main effect of subliminal masked priming and antipriming on participants' metamemory judgments for JOL ratings, predictive accuracy (gamma correlation), or response times for judgments of the likelihood of future recall of target words. However, there was a trend towards an interaction effect of priming and JOL timing (i.e.: immediate vs. delayed), such that JOLs made immediately after study were higher for the primed items than for the baseline or antiprimed items. In contrast, antipriming did significantly influence explicit recall, with slowing of explicit recall response times for antiprimed target words, relative to word-pairs in the baseline condition. Difference scores between JOL ratings and recall accuracy reflected overconfidence among TBI survivors, and good calibration among controls. There was a significant decrease in the overconfidence of TBI survivors for antiprimed items. However, much of this lowering was caused by an increase in recall accuracy for antiprime items. In the visual object identification task, antipriming was robustly observed for both participant groups; there was significant slowing observed for responses to antiprimed items. Finally, a mild positive correlation between the degree of priming for visual object identification and the degree of priming of relative predictive accuracy in the paired associate learning task was found across participants. The present research finds weak evidence for the role of implicit memory, in the form of masked priming and antipriming, in JOLs and relative predictive accuracy in paired associate learning. Future research providing masked priming stimuli immediately prior to the solicitation of JOLs may address possible attenuation of such effects which may have occurred in the present study. Additionally, using numbers from the JOL rating scale as subliminal stimuli may shed additional light on the type of representation taken as input by the metamemory system. Finally, exploration of long term priming and antipriming of metamemory in the TBI population should be undertaken to determine whether or not there is a priming benefit to metamemory judgments through supraliminal implicit memory.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Remembering to Remember: Metamemory Judgments of Prospective Memory after Traumatic Brain Injury
    (2016-06) O'Brien, Kathryn
    Background: Impairments to prospective memory (PM) are ubiquitous after traumatic brain injury (TBI). PM is remembering to complete an intention at a future time – like picking up milk on the way home – and is critical for independent living. PM includes two primary components: recognizing the CUE when a task should occur, and recalling the TASK to be completed. Many adults use memory aids for PM, such as notes or phone alarms. Such strategy use is related to metamemory judgments, or self-assessments of future success. Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to examine how adults with and without TBI consider PM performance. Research questions compared predictions and recall performance at PM, as well as the relationship between PM metamemory predictions and standardized assessments of cognitive function. Methods: Eighteen adults with chronic moderate to severe TBI and 20 matched healthy controls played Tying the String, an online simulated workweek PM game. Participants studied PM items and made two judgments of learning about the likelihood of recognizing a PM CUE, and of recalling the PM TASK. Participants also completed a standard neuropsychological battery. Results: Participants with TBI were less confident in future recall than healthy controls and both groups were less confident about the TASK. For recall performance, healthy controls performed similarly across the CUE and TASK. In contrast, adults with TBI at times recognized a CUE, but were unlikely to remember the corresponding TASK. Absolute difference scores of metamemory accuracy showed that healthy adults were underconfident across PM, whereas adults with TBI were overconfident about the task. Adults with TBI adjusted judgments downward as the game progressed at a rate greater than healthy controls. During standardized testing, participants with TBI chose to use PM strategies, but those strategies were not effective at triggering PM recall. Discussion: Participants with TBI adjusted metamemory expectations downward, but not enough to account for poor recall performance. Individuals with TBI have metamemory awareness to use strategies, but deficient monitoring of memory performance results in incomplete metamemory knowledge. Future work should address linking PM metamemory monitoring with strategy use to direct intervention approaches.