A Metacognitive Perspective of Visual Working Memory With Rich Complex Objects

Visual working memory (VWM) has been extensively studied in the context of memory capacity. However, less research has been devoted to the metacognitive processes involved in VWM. Most metacognitive studies of VWM studies tested simple, impoverished stimuli, whereas outside of the laboratory setting, we typically interact with meaningful, complex objects. Thus, the present study aimed to explore the extent to which people are able to monitor VWM of real-world objects that are more ecologically valid and further afford less inter-trial interference. Specifically, in three experiments, participants viewed a set of either four or six memory items, consisting of images of unique real-world objects that were not repeated throughout the experiment. Following the memory array, participants were asked to indicate where the probe item appeared (Experiment 1) whether it appeared at all (Experiment 2) or whether it appeared and what was its temporal order (Experiment 3). VWM monitoring was assessed by subjective confidence judgments regarding participants’ objective performance. Similar to common metacognitive findings in other domains, we found that subjective judgments overestimated performance and underestimated errors, even for real-world, complex items held in VWM. These biases seem not to be task-specific as they were found in temporal, spatial, and identity VWM tasks. Yet, the results further showed that meaningful, real-world objects were better remembered than distorted items, and this memory advantage also translated to metacognitive measures.

[1]  Jifan Zhou,et al.  Does attribute amnesia occur with the presentation of complex, meaningful stimuli? The answer is, “it depends” , 2019, Memory & Cognition.

[2]  Yuhong Jiang,et al.  Indirect assessment of visual working memory for simple and complex objects , 2008, Memory & cognition.

[3]  R. Fendrich,et al.  Attentive and Pre-Attentive Processes in Change Detection and Identification , 2012, PloS one.

[4]  Tad T. Brunyé,et al.  Metacognitive monitoring in visuospatial working memory. , 2012, Psychology and aging.

[5]  A. Efklides,et al.  Metamemory and memory efficiency: Implications for student learning , 2012 .

[6]  H. Lau,et al.  How to measure metacognition , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[7]  Donald E. Broadbent,et al.  Recency Effects in Visual Memory , 1981 .

[8]  Mary C Potter,et al.  Large capacity temporary visual memory. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[9]  Yuhong Jiang,et al.  Method matters: systematic effects of testing procedure on visual working memory sensitivity. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  Mie Komori,et al.  Effects of Working Memory Capacity on Metacognitive Monitoring: A Study of Group Differences Using a Listening Span Test , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[11]  Edward K Vogel,et al.  Confident failures: Lapses of working memory reveal a metacognitive blind spot , 2017, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[12]  Sabina Kleitman,et al.  The Role of Individual Differences in the Accuracy of Confidence Judgments , 2002, The Journal of general psychology.

[13]  George A Alvarez,et al.  Looking Inward and Back: Real-Time Monitoring of Visual Working Memories , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  Howard C. Hughes,et al.  Failures to see: Attentive blank stares revealed by change blindness , 2008, Consciousness and Cognition.

[15]  Fuat Balcı,et al.  Are you early or late?: Temporal error monitoring. , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[16]  A. Koriat,et al.  Metacognitive Control of Memory Reporting , 2014 .

[17]  T. Makovski,et al.  Bridging the gap between visual temporary memory and working memory: The role of stimuli distinctiveness. , 2020, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  J. Berry,et al.  Metacognitive awareness of the associative deficit for words and names , 2013, Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition.

[19]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[20]  Timothy F. Brady,et al.  Working memory is not fixed-capacity: More active storage capacity for real-world objects than for simple stimuli , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  T. Makovski Meaning in learning: Contextual cueing relies on objects’ visual features and not on objects’ meaning , 2018, Memory & cognition.

[22]  Thomas Wolbers,et al.  The effect of feedback on temporal error monitoring and timing behavior , 2019, Behavioural Brain Research.

[23]  T. Makovski Does proactive interference play a significant role in visual working memory tasks? , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  Aude Oliva,et al.  Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. , 1984, Psychological bulletin.

[26]  M Moscovitch,et al.  Episodic memory for object location versus episodic memory for object identity: Do they rely on distinct encoding processes? , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[27]  Juha Silvanto,et al.  Accuracy and Confidence of Visual Short-Term Memory Do Not Go Hand-In-Hand: Behavioral and Neural Dissociations , 2014, PloS one.

[28]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[29]  Joshua K. Hartshorne Visual Working Memory Capacity and Proactive Interference , 2008, PloS one.

[30]  Frank Tong,et al.  Introspective judgments predict the precision and likelihood of successful maintenance of visual working memory. , 2012, Journal of vision.

[31]  K. Fiedler,et al.  ! Metacognition : Monitoring and Controlling One ’ s Own Knowledge , Reasoning and Decisions , 2019 .

[32]  Asher Koriat,et al.  Metacognition and consciousness. , 2007 .

[33]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  Metacognitive regulation of text learning: on screen versus on paper. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[34]  Bradley R. Postle,et al.  Correlated individual differences suggest a common mechanism underlying metacognition in visual perception and visual short-term memory , 2017 .

[35]  Anil K Seth,et al.  Accurate Metacognition for Visual Sensory Memory Representations , 2014, Psychological science.

[36]  Caren M Rotello,et al.  Sources of bias in the Goodman-Kruskal gamma coefficient measure of association: implications for studies of metacognitive processes. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[37]  S. Fleming,et al.  Human Metacognition Across Domains: Insights from Individual Differences and Neuroimaging , 2018, Personality Neuroscience.

[38]  Hakwan Lau,et al.  Manipulation of working memory contents selectively impairs metacognitive sensitivity in a concurrent visual discrimination task , 2015, Neuroscience of consciousness.

[39]  S. Luck,et al.  Proactive Interference Does Not Meaningfully Distort Visual Working Memory Capacity Estimates in the Canonical Change Detection Task , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[40]  Yuhong V Jiang,et al.  Effects of changing object identity on location working memory , 2020, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[41]  Joel Pearson,et al.  Unconscious information changes decision accuracy but not confidence , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[42]  M. Husain,et al.  Forgetting What Was Where: The Fragility of Object-Location Binding , 2012, PloS one.

[43]  George A. Alvarez,et al.  Remembering thousands of objects with high fidelity , 2010 .

[44]  B. Underwood,et al.  Proactive inhibition in short-term retention of single items , 1962 .

[45]  J. Flavell Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry. , 1979 .

[46]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  When disfluency is—and is not—a desirable difficulty: The influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory , 2013, Memory & cognition.

[47]  E. Vogel,et al.  Visual working memory capacity: from psychophysics and neurobiology to individual differences , 2013, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[48]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  Does domain matter? Monitoring accuracy across domains , 2019, Metacognition and Learning.

[49]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[50]  Edward Awh,et al.  Clear evidence for item limits in visual working memory , 2017, Cognitive Psychology.