Search

Purpose: Prior research has shown that individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) may be overconfident in their judgments of learning (JOLs; online measures of self-monitoring of learning and memory). JOLs had been presumed to be driven by explicit processes, but recent research has also revealed implicit memory involvement. Given that implicit learning mechanisms are often intact in those with TBI, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether priming and antipriming of immediate and delayed JOLs in individuals with TBI might affect their overconfidence., Method: A standard 3-field masked priming paradigm was combined with a paired-associate learning task with JOLs and administered to individuals with TBI and matched controls (18 per group). In each trial, a subliminal masked stimulus was immediately followed by supraliminal presentation of a word pair for study; participants also made immediate and delayed JOLs, with cued-recall testing 10 min after study and judgment., Results: Antipriming significantly lowered JOLs and overconfidence for both groups, whereas delaying JOLs significantly improved recall for both groups., Conclusions: The results suggest that JOLs may be influenced by subliminal implicit memory. Clinical implications include the possible use of antipriming to reduce overconfidence after brain injury and delaying JOLs to improve recall.

Fifteen adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and 15 adults without brain injury listened to narratives, made delayed predictions of recall, and took a delayed recall test. Narrative questions differed by salience (main ideas, details) and explicitness (implied, stated) (R. H. Brookshire & L. E. Nicholas, 1993). TBI survivors recalled less than control participants regardless of question type. All participants recalled main ideas and implied information with greater accuracy than details and stated information. Predictive accuracy for recalling stated information was strong regardless of group. Participants were unable to predict recall for implied information. The materials-appropriate-processing (MAP) hypothesis proposes that predictive accuracy is biased by text type (i.e., predictive accuracy for recalling main ideas should be higher than for details when learning narratives). However, there were no differences in predictive accuracy for recalling main ideas and details, with both groups predicting recall modestly well. Controlling for explicitness appears to be an important variable for future metamemory text studies.

The primary intent of this study was to investigate the metamemory monitoring abilities of adult survivors of at least moderate traumatic brain injury (TBI) during a verbal-learning activity. Eighteen survivors and 18 non-injured control participants made judgment-of-learning (JOL) predictions of their recall ability immediately after studying 3 lists of noun-pairs or after a slight delay. A secondary intent of this study was to determine if verbal retrieval attempts would enhance predictive accuracy. One half of participants made retrieval attempts during the second and third list-learning task, and the other half made retrieval attempts during the third list-learning task only. Measures of the correlation between JOL predictions and recall accuracy revealed that survivors were as accurate as controls when making delayed predictions and were less accurate when making immediate predictions. This occurred regardless of retrieval attempts. Absolute measures that compared mean JOL ratings to overall recall revealed that the survivor group was well-calibrated when making delayed JOL predictions but overestimated when making immediate JOL predictions. The non-injured control group underestimated when making both types of predictions. However, within-group variability was high. These findings are compared to those from studies that investigated metamemory beliefs in which survivors' ratings were compared to family-member ratings. Clinical implications for basing executive decisions about compensatory strategies on delayed and immediate predictions of future recall are discussed. Additionally, a rationale is provided for the use of both relative and absolute measures of predictive accuracy in metamemory studies involving neurological clinical populations.