scholarly journals Individual Differences in Learning Efficiency

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 607-613
Author(s):  
Kathleen B. McDermott ◽  
Christopher L. Zerr

Most research on long-term memory uses an experimental approach whereby participants are assigned to different conditions, and condition means are the measures of interest. This approach has demonstrated repeatedly that conditions that slow the rate of learning tend to improve later retention. A neglected question is whether aggregate findings at the level of the group (i.e., slower learning tends to improve retention) translate to the level of individual people. We identify a discrepancy whereby—across people—slower learning tends to coincide with poorer memory. The positive relation between learning rate (speed of learning) and retention (amount remembered after a delay) across people is referred to as learning efficiency. A more efficient learner can acquire information faster and remember more of it over time. We discuss potential characteristics of efficient learners and consider future directions for research.

Author(s):  
Harold Stanislaw

Two hundred forty subjects working alone and in pairs performed three different versions of a task similar to industrial inspection: a rating task and spatial and temporal two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) tasks. Performance was worse on the rating task than on the 2AFC tasks, and the spatial and temporal 2AFC tasks were performed equally well. These results could signify that performance is impaired more by demands made on long-term memory than by demands made on perception and sensory memory, or that asking subjects to compare items is fundamentally different from, and easier than, asking subjects to judge items in absolute terms. Individual differences in performance were marked, but performance was inconsistent across different versions of the inspection task. When subjects worked in pairs, performance was comparable to that obtained by requiring items to pass two inspections by individual subjects. However, a single inspection by subject pairs required less time than two inspections by individual subjects. The practical implications of these findings are discussed.


Author(s):  
Stoo Sepp ◽  
Steven J. Howard ◽  
Sharon Tindall-Ford ◽  
Shirley Agostinho ◽  
Fred Paas

In 1956, Miller first reported on a capacity limitation in the amount of information the human brain can process, which was thought to be seven plus or minus two items. The system of memory used to process information for immediate use was coined “working memory” by Miller, Galanter, and Pribram in 1960. In 1968, Atkinson and Shiffrin proposed their multistore model of memory, which theorized that the memory system was separated into short-term memory, long-term memory, and the sensory register, the latter of which temporarily holds and forwards information from sensory inputs to short term-memory for processing. Baddeley and Hitch built upon the concept of multiple stores, leading to the development of the multicomponent model of working memory in 1974, which described two stores devoted to the processing of visuospatial and auditory information, both coordinated by a central executive system. Later, Cowan’s theorizing focused on attentional factors in the effortful and effortless activation and maintenance of information in working memory. In 1988, Cowan published his model—the scope and control of attention model. In contrast, since the early 2000s Engle has investigated working memory capacity through the lens of his individual differences model, which does not seek to quantify capacity in the same way as Miller or Cowan. Instead, this model describes working memory capacity as the interplay between primary memory (working memory), the control of attention, and secondary memory (long-term memory). This affords the opportunity to focus on individual differences in working memory capacity and extend theorizing beyond storage to the manipulation of complex information. These models and advancements have made significant contributions to understandings of learning and cognition, informing educational research and practice in particular. Emerging areas of inquiry include investigating use of gestures to support working memory processing, leveraging working memory measures as a means to target instructional strategies for individual learners, and working memory training. Given that working memory is still debated, and not yet fully understood, researchers continue to investigate its nature, its role in learning and development, and its implications for educational curricula, pedagogy, and practice.


2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 768-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip A. Allen ◽  
Kevin Kaut ◽  
Elsa Baena ◽  
Mei-Ching Lien ◽  
Eric Ruthruff

2012 ◽  
Vol 200 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Meagher ◽  
Dimitrios Adamis ◽  
Paula Trzepacz ◽  
Maeve Leonard

BackgroundLongitudinal studies of delirium phenomenology are lacking.AimsWe studied features that characterise subsyndromal delirium and persistent delirium over time.MethodTwice-weekly evaluations of 100 adults with DSM-IV delirium using the Delirium Rating Scale – Revised-98 (DRS-R98) and Cognitive Test for Delirium (CTD). The generalised estimating equation method identified symptom patterns distinguishing full syndromal from subsyndromal delirium and resolving from persistent delirium.ResultsParticipants (mean age 70.2 years (s.d. = 10.5)) underwent 323 assessments (range 2–9). Full syndromal delirium was significantly more severe than subsyndromal delirium for DRS-R98 thought process abnormalities, delusions, hallucinations, agitation, retardation, orientation, attention, and short- and long-term memory items, and CTD attention, vigilance, orientation and memory. Persistent full syndromal delirium had greater disturbance of DRS-R98 thought process abnormalities, delusions, agitation, orientation, attention, and short- and long-term memory items, and CTD attention, vigilance and orientation.ConclusionsFull syndromal delirium differs from subsyndromal delirium over time by greater severity of many cognitive and non-cognitive symptoms. Persistent delirium involves increasing prominence of recognised core diagnostic features and cognitive impairment.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Samaha ◽  
Bradley R. Postle

AbstractAdaptive behavior depends on the ability to accurately introspect about one’s own performance. Whether this metacognitive ability is supported by the same mechanisms across different tasks has thus far been investigated with a focus on correlating metacognitive accuracy between perception and long-term memory paradigms. Here, we investigated the relationship between metacognition of visual perception and metacognition of visual short-term memory (VSTM), a cognitive function thought to be more intimately related to visual processing. Experiments 1 and 2 required subjects to estimate the perceived or remembered orientation of a grating stimulus and rate their confidence. We observed strong positive correlations between individual differences in metacognitive accuracy between the two tasks. This relationship was not accounted for by individual differences in task performance or average confidence, and was present across two different metrics of metacognition and in both experiments. A model-based analysis of data from a third experiment showed that a cross-domain correlation only emerged when both tasks shared the same task-relevant stimulus feature. That is, metacognition for perception and VSTM were correlated when both tasks required orientation judgments, but not when the perceptual task was switched to require contrast judgments. In contrast to previous results comparing perception and long-term memory, which have largely provided evidence for domain-specific metacognitive processes, the current findings suggest that metacognition of visual perception and VSTM is supported by a domain-general metacognitive architecture, but only when both domains share the same task-relevant stimulus feature.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Qi Lin ◽  
Kwangsun Yoo ◽  
Xilin Shen ◽  
Todd R. Constable ◽  
Marvin M. Chun

Abstract What is the neural basis of individual differences in the ability to hold information in long-term memory (LTM)? Here, we first characterize two whole-brain functional connectivity networks based on fMRI data acquired during an n-back task that robustly predict individual differences in two important forms of LTM, recognition and recollection. We then focus on the recognition memory model and contrast it with a working memory model. Although functional connectivity during the n-back task also predicts working memory performance and the two networks have some shared components, they are also largely distinct from each other: The recognition memory model performance remains robust when we control for working memory, and vice versa. Functional connectivity only within regions traditionally associated with LTM formation, such as the medial temporal lobe and those that show univariate subsequent memory effect, have little predictive power for both forms of LTM. Interestingly, the interactions between these regions and other brain regions play a more substantial role in predicting recollection memory than recognition memory. These results demonstrate that individual differences in LTM are dependent on the configuration of a whole-brain functional network including but not limited to regions associated with LTM during encoding and that such a network is separable from what supports the retention of information in working memory.


2003 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 742-742
Author(s):  
Janice M. Keenan ◽  
Jukka Hyönä ◽  
Johanna K. Kaakinen

Ruchkin et al.'s view of working memory as activated long-term memory is more compatible with language processing than models such as Baddeley's, but it raises questions about individual differences in working memory and the validity of domain-general capacity estimates. Does it make sense to refer to someone as having low working memory capacity if capacity depends on particular knowledge structures tapped by the task?


2019 ◽  
Vol 145 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nash Unsworth

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document