The Metacognitive Optimization of Offloading Task (MOOT): Both higher costs to offload and the accuracy of memory predict goodness of offloading performance.

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-23 DOI:10.1037/xge0001726
Dillon H Murphy, Janet Metcalfe
{"title":"The Metacognitive Optimization of Offloading Task (MOOT): Both higher costs to offload and the accuracy of memory predict goodness of offloading performance.","authors":"Dillon H Murphy, Janet Metcalfe","doi":"10.1037/xge0001726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We developed a Metacognitive Offloading Optimization Task (MOOT) whereby participants were instructed to score as many points as possible by accessing words from a presented list either by remembering them (worth 10 points each) or by offloading them (worth less than 10 points each). Results indicated that participants were sensitive to the value of the offloaded items such that when offloaded items carried a high value (e.g., 8 points each), participants' scores were lower than if they had chosen to offload all items. Conversely, when offloaded items had a low value (e.g., 2 points each), participants' scores exceeded what they would have achieved had they offloaded all items. In Experiments 2 and 3, we investigated offloading optimality. Specifically, because each individual's maximum possible score depended on how much they could remember, each participant's memory ability was assessed in a pretest. The maximum score obtainable resulted from a strategy in which the participant opts to recall every item that they will be able to remember (obtaining 10 points for each) and offloads all other items (obtaining a value greater than 0 points for each), leaving no items unrecalled and not offloaded. To implement this strategy, the participant needs to have and use metaknowledge of exactly which items they will be able to recall. In each experiment, the MOOT scores-the ratio of participants' observed score to their maximum possible score-were closer to optimal for participants with better memory ability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":"1149-1166"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001726","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We developed a Metacognitive Offloading Optimization Task (MOOT) whereby participants were instructed to score as many points as possible by accessing words from a presented list either by remembering them (worth 10 points each) or by offloading them (worth less than 10 points each). Results indicated that participants were sensitive to the value of the offloaded items such that when offloaded items carried a high value (e.g., 8 points each), participants' scores were lower than if they had chosen to offload all items. Conversely, when offloaded items had a low value (e.g., 2 points each), participants' scores exceeded what they would have achieved had they offloaded all items. In Experiments 2 and 3, we investigated offloading optimality. Specifically, because each individual's maximum possible score depended on how much they could remember, each participant's memory ability was assessed in a pretest. The maximum score obtainable resulted from a strategy in which the participant opts to recall every item that they will be able to remember (obtaining 10 points for each) and offloads all other items (obtaining a value greater than 0 points for each), leaving no items unrecalled and not offloaded. To implement this strategy, the participant needs to have and use metaknowledge of exactly which items they will be able to recall. In each experiment, the MOOT scores-the ratio of participants' observed score to their maximum possible score-were closer to optimal for participants with better memory ability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

卸载任务的元认知优化(MOOT):较高的卸载成本和记忆的准确性预示着卸载性能的良好。
我们开发了一个元认知卸载优化任务(MOOT),在这个任务中,参与者被指示通过记忆(每个值10分)或卸载(每个值不到10分)从呈现的列表中获取单词来获得尽可能多的分数。结果表明,参与者对卸载物品的价值很敏感,当卸载的物品价值很高(例如,每个8分)时,参与者的得分低于他们选择卸载所有物品的得分。相反,当卸载的物品价值较低(例如,每个2分)时,参与者的得分超过了他们卸载所有物品时的得分。在实验2和3中,我们研究了卸载最优性。具体来说,因为每个人的最高可能得分取决于他们能记住多少,所以每个参与者的记忆能力都是在预测试中评估的。获得的最高分数来自于这样一种策略:参与者选择回忆他们能够记住的所有项目(每个项目获得10分),并卸载所有其他项目(每个项目获得大于0分的值),没有任何项目不被回忆也没有被卸载。为了实施这一策略,参与者需要拥有并使用元知识,确切地知道他们能够回忆起哪些项目。在每个实验中,MOOT分数——参与者的观察得分与他们的最大可能得分之比——对于记忆力较好的参与者来说更接近最佳值。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信