Another look at the contribution of motoric fluency to metacognitive monitoring.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent evidence indicates that fluent motor interactions with studied information can increase confidence in how well that information will be later remembered, as measured by judgements of learning (JOLs). However, it remains unclear whether such metacognitive assessments are based on experienced motoric fluency or on explicit, analytic beliefs regarding the mnemonic impact of the experimental manipulations used to enhance fluency. Here, we introduce a new approach to examine the extent to which experience-based processes alone underlie this effect by manipulating motoric fluency outside of participants' awareness. Across two experiments, we examined typing speed for both real-word and nonword verbal stimuli following a training phase in which participants typed items consisting of a restricted subset of letters. Despite faster typing times (i.e., greater motoric fluency) for new items comprised of the same subset of letters used during training, we found no evidence that these items were perceived as more memorable. For real words, linear mixed-effect model analyses at the item level relating typing speed and JOLs also revealed no evidence that motoric fluency increased perceived memorability. Similar analyses conducted for nonwords did, however, reveal a modest positive relation between these constructs. Together, these findings suggest that the contribution of motoric fluency to metacognitive monitoring in the absence of analytic beliefs is minimal. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".