记忆中的置信度与准确度关系:推理、直接访问还是间接访问?

IF 3.9 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Chris M. Fiacconi
{"title":"记忆中的置信度与准确度关系:推理、直接访问还是间接访问?","authors":"Chris M. Fiacconi","doi":"10.1007/s11409-024-09399-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The relationship between confidence and accuracy has long been an important and controversial topic within the field of human memory. In a recent review article, Schwartz (2024). <i>Inferential theories of retrospective confidence</i>. Metacognition &amp; Learning.) competently summarized some of the key empirical findings on this issue and clearly articulated two different extant theoretical approaches to understanding this relationship. The <i>direct access</i> view states that one’s confidence in a memory is tied directly to the strength of the encoded memory trace, predicting a strong and near ubiquitous positive relationship between confidence and accuracy. In contrast, the <i>inferential view</i> holds that confidence is inferred from the heuristic use of available cues, and that any positive relationship between confidence and accuracy stems from the use of cues that correlate positively with accuracy. Here, I propose an alternative view that blends aspects of both accounts. Termed the <i>indirect access</i> account, I argue that memory signals and their experiential correlates form the basis of confidence judgments. This approach anticipates reported dissociations between confidence and accuracy, and accommodates a broad range of empirical findings. By this view, rare instances of weak confidence-accuracy relationships stem from strong misleading memory signals that experientially mimic strong accurate memory signals. Because strong memory signals are largely accurate, this view predicts a pervasive and robust positive relationship between confidence and accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47385,"journal":{"name":"Metacognition and Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the confidence-accuracy relationship in memory: inferential, direct access, or indirect access?\",\"authors\":\"Chris M. Fiacconi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11409-024-09399-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The relationship between confidence and accuracy has long been an important and controversial topic within the field of human memory. In a recent review article, Schwartz (2024). <i>Inferential theories of retrospective confidence</i>. Metacognition &amp; Learning.) competently summarized some of the key empirical findings on this issue and clearly articulated two different extant theoretical approaches to understanding this relationship. The <i>direct access</i> view states that one’s confidence in a memory is tied directly to the strength of the encoded memory trace, predicting a strong and near ubiquitous positive relationship between confidence and accuracy. In contrast, the <i>inferential view</i> holds that confidence is inferred from the heuristic use of available cues, and that any positive relationship between confidence and accuracy stems from the use of cues that correlate positively with accuracy. Here, I propose an alternative view that blends aspects of both accounts. Termed the <i>indirect access</i> account, I argue that memory signals and their experiential correlates form the basis of confidence judgments. This approach anticipates reported dissociations between confidence and accuracy, and accommodates a broad range of empirical findings. By this view, rare instances of weak confidence-accuracy relationships stem from strong misleading memory signals that experientially mimic strong accurate memory signals. Because strong memory signals are largely accurate, this view predicts a pervasive and robust positive relationship between confidence and accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Metacognition and Learning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Metacognition and Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09399-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metacognition and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09399-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,置信度与准确度之间的关系一直是人类记忆领域中一个重要而有争议的话题。在最近的一篇评论文章中,施瓦茨(2024)。Inferential theories of retrospective confidence.Metacognition&Learning.)很好地总结了关于这一问题的一些重要实证研究结果,并清晰地阐述了理解这一关系的两种不同的现存理论方法。直接存取观点认为,一个人对记忆的信心与编码记忆痕迹的强度直接相关,并预测信心与准确性之间存在强烈且近乎普遍的正相关关系。与此相反,推论观点认为,信心是通过对可用线索的启发式使用推断出来的,信心与准确性之间的任何正相关关系都源于对与准确性正相关的线索的使用。在这里,我提出了另一种观点,它融合了这两种说法的各个方面。我将其称为 "间接获取说",认为记忆信号及其经验关联构成了信心判断的基础。这种观点预见到了所报道的信心和准确性之间的差异,并能适应广泛的经验研究结果。根据这一观点,信心与准确性之间关系薄弱的罕见情况源于强烈的误导性记忆信号,而这些信号在经验上模仿了强烈的准确记忆信号。由于强记忆信号在很大程度上是准确的,这种观点预示着信心和准确性之间普遍存在着稳健的正相关关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the confidence-accuracy relationship in memory: inferential, direct access, or indirect access?

The relationship between confidence and accuracy has long been an important and controversial topic within the field of human memory. In a recent review article, Schwartz (2024). Inferential theories of retrospective confidence. Metacognition & Learning.) competently summarized some of the key empirical findings on this issue and clearly articulated two different extant theoretical approaches to understanding this relationship. The direct access view states that one’s confidence in a memory is tied directly to the strength of the encoded memory trace, predicting a strong and near ubiquitous positive relationship between confidence and accuracy. In contrast, the inferential view holds that confidence is inferred from the heuristic use of available cues, and that any positive relationship between confidence and accuracy stems from the use of cues that correlate positively with accuracy. Here, I propose an alternative view that blends aspects of both accounts. Termed the indirect access account, I argue that memory signals and their experiential correlates form the basis of confidence judgments. This approach anticipates reported dissociations between confidence and accuracy, and accommodates a broad range of empirical findings. By this view, rare instances of weak confidence-accuracy relationships stem from strong misleading memory signals that experientially mimic strong accurate memory signals. Because strong memory signals are largely accurate, this view predicts a pervasive and robust positive relationship between confidence and accuracy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
15.20%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The journal "Metacognition and Learning" addresses various components of metacognition, such as metacognitive awareness, experiences, knowledge, and executive skills. Both general metacognition as well as domain-specific metacognitions in various task domains (mathematics, physics, reading, writing etc.) are considered. Papers may address fundamental theoretical issues, measurement issues regarding both quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as empirical studies about individual differences in metacognition, relations with other learner characteristics and learning strategies, developmental issues, the training of metacognition components in learning, and the teacher’s role in metacognition training. Studies highlighting the role of metacognition in self- or co-regulated learning as well as its relations with motivation and affect are also welcomed. Submitted papers are judged on theoretical relevance, methodological thoroughness, and appeal to an international audience. The journal aims for a high academic standard with relevance to the field of educational practices. One restriction is that papers should pertain to the role of metacognition in learning situations. Self-regulation in clinical settings, such as coping with phobia or anxiety outside learning situations, is beyond the scope of the journal.
×
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