Metamemory for pictures of naturalistic scenes: Assessment of accuracy and cue utilization

Monika Undorf,Arndt Bröder

doi:10.3758/s13421-021-01170-5

Abstract

Memory for naturalistic pictures is exceptionally good. However, little is known about people’s ability to monitor the memorability of naturalistic pictures. We report the first systematic investigation into the accuracy and basis of metamemory in this domain. People studied pictures of naturalistic scenes, predicted their chances of recognizing each picture at a later test (judgment of learning, JOL), and completed a recognition memory test. Across three experiments, JOLs revealed substantial accuracy. This was due to people basing their JOLs on multiple cues, most of which predicted recognition memory. Identified cues include intrinsic picture attributes (e.g., peacefulness of scenes; scenes with or without persons) and extrinsic aspects of the study situation (e.g., presentation frequency; semantic distinctiveness of scenes with respect to the context). This work provides a better understanding of metamemory for pictures and it demonstrates close parallels between metamemory for naturalistic scenes and verbal materials.

Highlights

Memory for naturalistic pictures is exceptionally good
The current research aims to expand our knowledge about metamemory by investigating the accuracy and basis of people’s predictions of remembering recently studied pictures of naturalistic scenes at a later test
A new finding was that people based their JOLs for pictures of naturalistic scenes on contextual distinctiveness and color, with most but not all participants predicting better memory performance for distinct scenes and color scenes than for indistinct scenes and grayscale scenes

Summary

Introduction

Memory for naturalistic pictures is exceptionally good. little is known about people’s ability to monitor the memorability of naturalistic pictures. The current research aims to expand our knowledge about metamemory by investigating the accuracy and basis of people’s predictions of remembering recently studied pictures of naturalistic scenes at a later test (judgments of learning [JOLs]). Immediate JOLs are moderately accurate (e.g., Bröder & Undorf, 2019; Dunlosky & Metcalfe, 2009; Koriat, 1997).1 This accuracy is due to people basing their JOLs on probabilistic cues, many of which are predictive of actual memory (Koriat, 1997; Rhodes, 2016; Undorf et al, 2018; Undorf & Bröder, 2020). Recall memory (Schmoeger et al, 2020; Tauber et al, 2017) but not recognition memory (Hourihan & Bursey, 2017) was better for positive and negative pictures than for neutral pictures, meaning that people accurately predicted valence effects on recall but not on recognition memory (for similar findings with verbal materials, see Bröder & Undorf, 2019; Zimmerman & Kelley, 2010)

Methods

Results

Conclusion