Monitoring the ebb and flow of attention: Does controlling the onset of stimuli during encoding enhance memory?
Central to the operation of the Atkinson and Shiffrin’s (Psychology of learning and motivation, 2, 89-195, 1968) model of human memory are a variety of control processes that manage information flow. Research on metacognition reveals that provision of control in laboratory learning tasks is generally beneficial to memory. In this paper, we investigate the novel domain of attentional fluctuations during study. If learners are able to monitor attention, then control over the onset of stimuli should also improve performance. Across four experiments, we found no evidence that control over the onset of stimuli enhances learning. This result stands in notable contrast to the fact that control over stimulus offset does enhance memory (Experiment 1; Tullis & Benjamin, Journal of memory and language, 64 (2), 109-118, 2011). This null finding was replicated across laboratory and online samples of subjects, and with both words and faces as study material. Taken together, the evidence suggests that people either cannot monitor fluctuations in attention effectively or cannot precisely time their study to those fluctuations.
Keywordsmemory metamemory attention recognition
- Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Benjamin, A. S. (2007). Memory is more than just remembering: Strategic control of encoding, accessing memory, and making decisions. In A. S. Benjamin & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Skill and Strategy in Memory Use (Vol. 48; 175-223). London: Academic PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fiechter, J. L., Benjamin, A. S., & Unsworth, N. (2016). The metacognitive foundations of effective remembering. In J. Dunlosky & S. Tauber (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Metamemory (pp. 307–324). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Finley, J. R., Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2010). Metacognitive control of learning and remembering. In M. S. Khine & I. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 108–132). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Oxford: John Wiley.Google Scholar
- Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of Probability. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kane, M. J., & McVay, J. C. (2012). Why does working memory capacity predict variation in reading comprehension? On the influence of mind wandering and executive attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(2), 302.Google Scholar
- Kornell, N., & Finn, B. (2016). Self-regulated learning: An overview of theory and data. The Oxford Handbook of Metamemory, 325–340.Google Scholar
- Lindley, D. V. (1957). A statistical paradox. Biometrika, 44(1/2), 187–192.Google Scholar
- Minear, M., & Park, D. C. (2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(4), 630–633.Google Scholar
- Rouder, J. N. (2014). Optional stopping: No problem for Bayesians. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), 301–308.Google Scholar
- Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Speckman, P. L., & Province, J. M. (2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(5), 356–374.Google Scholar
- Wilson, M. (1988). MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine-usable dictionary, version 2.00. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 20(1), 6–10.Google Scholar