Improved Memory for Error Feedback

Overview

Journal Psychol Res

Specialty Psychology

Date 2015 Sep 12

PMID 26358052

Citations 2

Authors

Liesbet Van der Borght

Nathalie Schouppe

Wim Notebaert

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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).

Citing Articles

The influence of social feedback on reward learning in the Iowa gambling task.

Peng M, Duan Q, Yang X, Tang R, Zhang L, Zhang H Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1292808.

PMID: 38756493 PMC: 11098015. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1292808.

Enhanced memory for context associated with corrective feedback: evidence for episodic processes in errorful learning.

Overman A, Stephens J, Bernhardt M Memory. 2021; 29(8):1017-1042.

PMID: 34309487 PMC: 8440464. DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2021.1957937.

References

Albrecht T, Vorberg D . Long-lasting effects of briefly flashed words and pseudowords in ultrarapid serial visual presentation. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010; 36(5):1339-45. DOI: 10.1037/a0019999. View

Stevens M, Lammertyn J, Verbruggen F, Vandierendonck A . Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS windows platform. Behav Res Methods. 2006; 38(2):280-6. DOI: 10.3758/bf03192779. View

Swallow K, Jiang Y . The role of timing in the attentional boost effect. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011; 73(2):389-404. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-010-0045-y. View

Fazio L, Marsh E . Surprising feedback improves later memory. Psychon Bull Rev. 2009; 16(1):88-92. PMC: 4036076. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.16.1.88. View

Keuleers E, Brysbaert M . Wuggy: a multilingual pseudoword generator. Behav Res Methods. 2010; 42(3):627-33. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.42.3.627. View

Spataro P, Mulligan N, Rossi-Arnaud C . Divided attention can enhance memory encoding: the attentional boost effect in implicit memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013; 39(4):1223-31. DOI: 10.1037/a0030907. View

Polich J . Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin Neurophysiol. 2007; 118(10):2128-48. PMC: 2715154. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019. View

Krebs R, Boehler C, De Belder M, Egner T . Neural conflict-control mechanisms improve memory for target stimuli. Cereb Cortex. 2013; 25(3):833-43. PMC: 4400531. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bht283. View

Swallow K, Jiang Y . Goal-relevant events need not be rare to boost memory for concurrent images. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011; 74(1):70-82. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-011-0227-2. View

10.

Keuleers E, Diependaele K, Brysbaert M . Practice effects in large-scale visual word recognition studies: a lexical decision study on 14,000 dutch mono- and disyllabic words and nonwords. Front Psychol. 2011; 1:174. PMC: 3153785. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00174. View

11.

Simons R, GRAHAM F, Miles M, Chen X . On the relationship of P3a and the Novelty-P3. Biol Psychol. 2001; 56(3):207-18. DOI: 10.1016/s0301-0511(01)00078-3. View

12.

Steinborn M, Flehmig H, Bratzke D, Schroter H . Error reactivity in self-paced performance: Highly-accurate individuals exhibit largest post-error slowing. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2012; 65(4):624-31. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2012.660962. View

13.

Danielmeier C, Ullsperger M . Post-error adjustments. Front Psychol. 2011; 2:233. PMC: 3173829. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00233. View

14.

Nunez Castellar E, Kuhn S, Fias W, Notebaert W . Outcome expectancy and not accuracy determines posterror slowing: ERP support. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2010; 10(2):270-8. DOI: 10.3758/CABN.10.2.270. View

15.

Ernst B, Steinhauser M . Feedback-related brain activity predicts learning from feedback in multiple-choice testing. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2012; 12(2):323-36. DOI: 10.3758/s13415-012-0087-9. View

16.

Botvinick M, Braver T, Barch D, Carter C, Cohen J . Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108(3):624-52. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624. View

17.

Barr D, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily H . Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. J Mem Lang. 2014; 68(3). PMC: 3881361. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001. View

18.

Macleod C . Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychol Bull. 1991; 109(2):163-203. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163. View

19.

Duyck W, DeSmet T, Verbeke L, Brysbaert M . WordGen: a tool for word selection and nonword generation in Dutch, English, German, and French. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2005; 36(3):488-99. DOI: 10.3758/bf03195595. View

20.

Houtman F, Notebaert W . Blinded by an error. Cognition. 2013; 128(2):228-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.04.003. View