Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

The Korean Society for Cognitive Science (한국인지과학회)
권호 표지

The Effect of Encoding strategy and Transfer Appropriate Processing on Prospective Memory Performance

부호화 전략 유형과 동시과제 처리 적절성이 미래계획기억 수행에 미치는 효과

  • Received : 2016.03.20
  • Accepted : 2016.03.22
  • Published : 2016.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The present study was conducted to examine the effect of meta-cognitive strategy and transfer appropriate processing(TAP) on prospective memory performance. In two experiments, encoding strategy for PM target words was manipulated by instructions. Participants who were assigned to meta strategic condition were engaged to rate task difficulty(EOL) in addition to predict their own performance(JOL), while participants in cognitive strategy condition were to remember target words by pleasantness ratings and sentence generation. In experiment1 and experiment 2, all participants in both conditions performed not only TAP ongoing task but also TIP ongoing task. Results revealed the benefit of meta cognition and transfer appropriate processing on PM performance. Furthermore, the benefit of TAP was diminished in cognitive strategy condition. There were no-costs on judgement tasks across conditions. The findings suggest that meta-cognition allows to sustain PM targets and intention without regard to cognitive resource.

본 연구는 미래계획기억(PM) 수행에서 기억전략과 동시과제 처리적절성의 효과를 탐색하기 위해 수행되었다. 먼저 실험 1에서 목표단어 파지를 위한 기억전략 유형이 부호화 단계에서 조작되었다. 먼저 메타 전략을 통해 목표단어를 기억해야했던 참가자들은 PM 과제 수행에 대한 수행 난이도에 대한 주관적 평정과 자신의 수행 예측 정도를 판단해야 했으며, 인지 전략을 통해 목표단어를 기억해야 했던 참가자들은 목표단어에 대한 문장 산출과 주관적 호감도 평정을 해야 했다. 또한 모든 참가자들은 목표단어와의 처리적절성이 높은 동시과제와 낮은 동시과제 두 종류 모두를 수행하면서 PM 과제를 수행해야 했다. 실험 2는 실험 1의 반복검증을 위해 수행되었으며, 처리적절성에 대한 동시과제의 종류를 제외하고 실험 1과 모든 것이 동일하였다. 실험 결과, 두 실험 모두에서 메타 전략 조건의 참가자들이 인지 전략 조건의 참가자들보다 PM 수행 정확률이 더 높았다. 또한 처리적절성이 높은 과제에서 PM 수행 정확률이 더 높았다. 두 조건들 간에 상호작용도 나타났다. 메타 인지 조건에서는 처리적절성이 높은 동시과제를 수행하는 동안 PM 정확율이 좋았던 반면, 인지 전략 조건에서는 처리적절성에 따라 PM 정확율에 차이가 없었다. 동시과제에서는 조건들 간에 아무런 수행의 손실이나 이득이 나타나지 않았다. 본 연구의 결과를 통해 미래계획기억 수행에서 메타 인지처리과정에 의한 수행의 향상은 인지 자원의 영향에 따라 달라질 수 있다고 볼 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 박영신, 임재희, 장미숙 (2011). 동시과제의 처리 적절성이 미래계획기억 수행에 미치는 효과. 인지과학, 22(4), 449-467.
  2. 윤용식, 손영우 (2011). 메타 인지적 인식과 미래계획기억 인출 과정. 인지과학, 22(2), 145-172.
  3. Abney, D. H., McBride, D. M., & Petrella, S. N. (2013). Interactive effects in transfer-appropriate processing for event-based prospective memory: The roles of effort, ongoing task, and PM cue properties. Memory & Cognition, 41(7), 1032-1045. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0324-7
  4. Benjamin, A. S. (2007). Memory is more than just remembering: Strategic control of encoding, accessing memory, and making decisions. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 48, 175-223.
  5. Blaxton, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(4), 657. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.4.657
  6. Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL quarterly, 21(2), 227-249. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586733
  7. Cohen, A. D., & Dornyei, Z. (2002). Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles, and strategies. An introduction to applied linguistics, 170-190.
  8. DeMarie, D., Miller, P. H., Ferron, J., & Cunningham, W. R. (2004). Path analysis tests of theoretical models of children's memory performance. Journal of Cognition and Development, 5, 461-492. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327647jcd0504_4
  9. Diana, R. A., Yonelinas, A. P., & Ranganath, C. (2008). The effects of unitization on familiarity-based source memory: testing a behavioral prediction derived from neuroimaging data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4), 730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.730
  10. Dunlosky, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2013). Four cornerstones of calibration research: why understanding students' judgments can improve their achievement. Learning and Instruction, 24, 58-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.002
  11. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.717
  12. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory mulTIPle retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(6), 286-290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00382.x
  13. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). Prospective memory and metamemory: The skilled use of basic attentional and memory processes. Psychology of learning and motivation, 48, 145-173.
  14. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2010). Prospective memory and what costs do not reveal about retrieval processes: A commentary on Smith, Hunt, McVay, and McConnell (2007).
  15. Ellis, J., & Kvavilashvili, L. (2000). Prospective memory in 2000: Past, present, and future directions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(7), S1-S9. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.767
  16. Finn, B. (2008). Framing effects on metacognitive monitoring and control. Memory & Cognition, 36, 813-821. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.4.813
  17. Finn, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2014). Overconfidence in children's multi-trial judgments of learning. Learning and Instruction, 32, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.001
  18. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The nature of intelligence, 12, 231-235.
  19. Geurten, M., Lejeune, C., & Meulemans, T. (2016). Time's Up! Involvement of Metamemory Knowledge, Executive Functions, and Time Monitoring in Children's Prospective Memory Performance. Child Neuropsychology, 22, 443-457. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2014.998642
  20. Graf, P., & Schacter, D. L. (1989). Unitization and grouping mediate dissociations in memory for new associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(5), 930. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.930
  21. Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Keener, M. C. (2008). Metacognition in education: a focus on calibration. In J. Dunlosky, & R. A. Bjork(Eds.), Handbook of metamemory and memory(pp. 429-455). New York: Taylor & Francis.
  22. Hultsch, D. F., Hertzog, C., Dixon, R. A., & Davidson, H. (1988). Memory self-knowledge and self-efficacy in the aged. In Cognitive development in adulthood (pp. 65-92). Springer New York.
  23. Khezrlou, S. (2012). The relationship between cognitive and metacognitive strategies, age, and level of education. Reading, 12(1).
  24. King, J. F., Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1980). Judgments of knowing: the influence of retrieval practice. American Journal of Psychology, 93, 329-343. https://doi.org/10.2307/1422236
  25. Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103; 490-517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.490
  26. Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., & Pansky, A. (2000). Toward a psychology of memory accuracy. Annual review of psychology, 51, 481-537. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.481
  27. Kvavilashvili, L., & Ellis, J. (1996). Varieties of intention: Some distinctions and classifications. Prospective memory: Theory and applications, 6, 183-207.
  28. Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Cook, G. I. (2005). On the relationship between effort toward an ongoing task and cue detection in event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.68
  29. Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Hancock, T. W. (2000). On the interaction of ongoing cognitive activity and the nature of an event-based intention. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(7), S29-S41. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.769
  30. Maylor, E. A. (1996). Age-related impairment in an event-based prospective-memory task. Psychology and aging, 11(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.11.1.74
  31. Maylor, E. A. (1998). Changes in event-based prospective memory across adulthood. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 5(2), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1076/anec.5.2.107.599
  32. McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied cognitive psychology, 14(7), S127-S144. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.775
  33. Mcgann, D., Ellis, J. A., & Milne, A. (2002). Conceptual and perceptual processes in prospective remembering: Differential influence of attentional resources. Memory & Cognition, 30(7), 1021-1032. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194320
  34. Meeks, J. T., Hicks, J. L., & Marsh, R. L. (2007). Metacognitive awareness of event-based prospective memory. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(4), 997-1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2006.09.005
  35. Meier, B., & Graf, P. (2000). Transfer appropriate processing for prospective memory tests. Applied cognitive psychology, 14(7), 11-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.768
  36. Meier, B., von Wartburg, P., Matter, S., Rothen, N., & Reber, R. (2011). Performance predictions improve prospective memory and influence retrieval experience. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022784
  37. Meiser, T., & Schult, J. C. (2008). On the automatic nature of the task-appropriate processing effect in event-based prospective memory. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 290-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440701319068
  38. Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 174-179. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.174
  39. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 16(5), 519-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9
  40. Murray, B. D., & Kensinger, E. A. (2012). The effects of emotion and encoding strategy on associative memory. Memory & Cognition, 40(7), 1056-1069. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0215-3
  41. Nelson, T. O., and Leonesio, R. J. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings, 26, In: Bower, G. (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Academic Press, New York.
  42. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Allocation of self-paces study time and the 'labor-invain- effect.' Journal of Experimental Psychology of Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 476-486.
  43. Pannu, J. K., & Kaszniak, A. W. (2005). Metamemory Experiments in Neurological Populations: A Review. Neuropsychology Review, 15(3), 105-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-005-7091-6
  44. Reder, L. M. (2014). Implicit memory and metacognition. Psychology Press.
  45. Reder, L. M., & Schunn, C. D. (1996). Metacognition does not imply awareness: Strategy choice is governed by implicit learning and memory.
  46. Rummel, J., Kuhlmann, B. G., & Touron, D. R. (2013). Performance predictions affect attentional processes of event-based prospective memory. Consciousness and cognition, 22(3), 729-741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.012
  47. Rummel, J., & Meiser, T. (2013). The role of metacognition in prospective memory: Anticipated task demands influence attention allocation strategies. Consciousness and cognition, 22(3), 931-943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.06.006
  48. Schacter, D. L., & Graf, P. (1986). Effects of elaborative processing on implicit and explicit memory for new associations. Journal of experimental psychology: learning, memory, and cognition, 12(3), 432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.12.3.432
  49. Schnitzspahn, K. M., Zeintl, M., Jager, T., & Kliegel, M. (2011). Metacognition in prospective memory: are performance predictions accurate? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022842
  50. Scullin, M. K., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2010). Control of cost in prospective memory: Evidence for spontaneous retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 190. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017732
  51. Smith, R. E., Hunt, R. R., McVay, J. C., & McConnell, M. D. (2007). The cost of event-based prospective memory: Salient target events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 734. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.734
  52. Weldon, M. S., & Roediger, H. L. (1987). Altering retrieval demands reverses the picture superiority effect. Memory & Cognition, 15(4), 269-280. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197030
  53. Weldon, M. S., Roediger, H. L., & Challis, B. H. (1989). The properties of retrieval cues constrain the picture superiority effect. Memory & Cognition, 17(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199561
  54. West, R., & Craik, F. I. (2001). Influences on the efficiency of prospective memory in younger and older adults. Psychology and aging, 16(4), 682. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.16.4.682