» Articles » PMID: 22976883

When Disfluency Is--and is Not--a Desirable Difficulty: the Influence of Typeface Clarity on Metacognitive Judgments and Memory

Overview
Journal Mem Cognit
Specialty Psychology
Date 2012 Sep 15
PMID 22976883
Citations 29
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

There are many instances in which perceptual disfluency leads to improved memory performance, a phenomenon often referred to as the perceptual-interference effect (e.g., Diemand-Yauman, Oppenheimer, & Vaughn (Cognition 118:111-115, 2010); Nairne (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14:248-255, 1988)). In some situations, however, perceptual disfluency does not affect memory (Rhodes & Castel (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 137:615-625, 2008)), or even impairs memory (Glass, (Psychology and Aging 22:233-238, 2007)). Because of the uncertain effects of perceptual disfluency, it is important to establish when disfluency is a "desirable difficulty" (Bjork, 1994) and when it is not, and the degree to which people's judgments of learning (JOLs) reflect the consequences of processing disfluent information. In five experiments, our participants saw multiple lists of blurred and clear words and gave JOLs after each word. The JOLs were consistently higher for the perceptually fluent items in within-subjects designs, which accurately predicted the pattern of recall performance when the presentation time was short (Exps. 1a and 2a). When the final test was recognition or when the presentation time was long, however, we found no difference in recall for clear and blurred words, although JOLs continued to be higher for clear words (Exps. 2b and 3). When fluency was manipulated between subjects, neither JOLs nor recall varied between formats (Exp. 1b). This study suggests a boundary condition for the desirable difficulty of perceptual disfluency and indicates that a visual distortion, such as blurring a word, may not always induce the deeper processing necessary to create a perceptual-interference effect.

Citing Articles

It's All About That Case.

Hourihan K, Fawcett J Exp Psychol. 2024; 71(2):83-96.

PMID: 39314148 PMC: 11538925. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000615.


Judgments of learning in bilinguals: Does studying in a L2 hinder learning monitoring?.

Reyes M, Morales M, Bajo M PLoS One. 2023; 18(12):e0286516.

PMID: 38039293 PMC: 10691729. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286516.


Cognitive perspectives on maintaining physicians' medical expertise: III. Strengths and weaknesses of self-assessment.

Fraundorf S, Caddick Z, Nokes-Malach T, Rottman B Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2023; 8(1):58.

PMID: 37646932 PMC: 10469193. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-023-00511-z.


Influence of letter shape on readers' emotional experience, reading fluency, and text comprehension and memorisation.

Medved T, Podlesek A, Mozina K Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1107839.

PMID: 36910813 PMC: 9996753. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1107839.


Distinctive Sans Forgetica font does not benefit memory accuracy in the DRM paradigm.

Huff M, Maxwell N, Mitchell A Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2022; 7(1):102.

PMID: 36484976 PMC: 9733772. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-022-00448-9.


References
1.
Rawson K, Dunlosky J . Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing?. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002; 28(1):69-80. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.28.1.69. View

2.
Alter A, Oppenheimer D, Epley N, Eyre R . Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007; 136(4):569-76. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.569. View

3.
Dougherty M, Scheck P, Nelson T, Narens L . Using the past to predict the future. Mem Cognit. 2006; 33(6):1096-115. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193216. View

4.
Naveh-Benjamin M, Kilb A . How the measurement of memory processes can affect memory performance: the case of remember/know judgments. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011; 38(1):194-203. DOI: 10.1037/a0025256. View

5.
Rhodes M, Castel A . Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: evidence for metacognitive illusions. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008; 137(4):615-25. DOI: 10.1037/a0013684. View