Search

Students frequently make errors when learning, but generating errors can enhance subsequent learning from corrective feedback (i.e. the testing effect). There have also been cases in which errors generated by someone can be shared with others. Notably, it has been found that listening to errors provided by someone could hinder the other’s subsequent learning from corrective feedback. In this study, we investigated whether the learning of someone who knows the correct answers beforehand is impaired by perceiving another’s error (i.e. retroactive interference). Thus, two experiments were conducted: a simulated question-and-answer situation (Experiment 1) and a mutual question-and-answer situation in which 2 students quizzed one another (Experiment 2). The results showed that the cued-recall performance of the tester who had received incorrect answers a week prior was not different from that in the case of learning with only reading (control condition), showing no negative effects. Furthermore, the memory performance of participants who took a test was better than the control condition, demonstrating the testing effect. We, thereby, discuss the efficacy of the reciprocal testing procedure as a learning method.

False memories endorsed with higher confidence are more likely to be corrected by feedback than those endorsed with lower confidence (hypercorrection effect). Errors made with high confidence and correct responses made with low confidence are both associated with large meta-memory mismatches. Therefore, they both represent a type of unexpected event which automatically captures participant attention, such that correct information provided via feedback is well-encoded. On the other hand, a study that measured participants’ perceived practical value for items suggested that voluntary allocation of attention might involve the hypercorrection effect. The present study involved a lexical learning task with 28 undergraduate student participants and measurement of automatic and voluntary attentional allocations via P3a/novelty P3 and P3b respectively, both of which are event-related potentials (ERPs). Behavioral results replicated the hypercorrection effect in a lexical learning task and showed modulation of the effect with regard to perceived practical value. In addition, ERP measurement results demonstrated that both automatic and voluntary allocations of attentional resources were independently involved in the hypercorrection phenomenon.

In educational settings, tests are mainly used to measure the extent to which learners’ knowledge and skill have been acquired. However, the act of taking a test also promotes learning itself. In particular, making errors on tests (i.e., searching for erroneous information) promotes learning. This is called the “failed retrieval effect” (FRE) and has been the subject of considerable study. Previous research shows that enhanced learning does not occur if feedback correcting an error is delayed. This is attributed to the relative absence of activated information. In this study, we manipulated both the amount of information to be retrieved prior to learning and the delay time until feedback is given to investigate their effects on learning. As a result, even when multiple incorrect answers were given to increase the degree of semantic activation, learning was not promoted beyond that found with traditional procedures that rely on only one incorrect response. The timing of feedback (immediate, short-delay, long-delay) also did not impact FRE. However, the manipulation of response format for erroneous information resulted in degraded performance when responses were typed and feedback was delayed. Based on this result, we suggested that the failed retrieval effect was not affected by semantic activation at the time of retrieval but was affected by response format. Moreover, the processing necessary for typing may affect FRE under the delayed feedback condition.

Many studies concerned with misinformation correction during learning report that delayed corrective feedback is superior to immediate feedback. However, the mechanism for this effect has not been confirmed. The interference-perseveration theory predicts that immediate feedback following participants' wrong responses elicits proactive interference that deteriorates acquisition of feedback information. In contrast, delayed feedback following errors leads to participants' forgetting these errors during the delay period; consequently, in the latter, interference should decline leading to superior acquisition of corrective information. However, results of these studies have been inconsistent. The present study manipulated whether initial errors were visually cued before feedback (no error-cueing, error-cueing) along with the timing of the feedback (immediate, delayed). The interference-perseveration theory predicts that when errors are not cued, delayed feedback should result in superior acquisition of correct information compared to immediate feedback. When errors are cued, proactive interference should effect a deterioration in acquisition of corrective feedback. Results confirmed neither of these predictions, thus challenging the interference-perseveration hypothesis. Moreover, additional analysis suggested that memory for errors has the ability to enhance the retention of correct answers and it does not hinder recall.

Memory errors associated with higher confidence are more likely to be corrected than errors made with lower confidence, a phenomenon called the hypercorrection effect. This study investigated whether the hypercorrection effect occurs with phonological information of lexical representations. In Experiment 1, 15 participants performed a Japanese Kanji word-reading task, in which the words had several possible pronunciations. In the initial task, participants were required to read aloud each word and indicate their confidence in their response; this was followed by receipt of visual feedback of the correct response. A hypercorrection effect was observed, indicating generality of this effect beyond previous observations in memories based upon semantic or episodic representations. This effect was replicated in Experiment 2, in which 40 participants performed the same task as in Experiment 1. When the participant's ratings of the practical value of the words were controlled, a partial correlation between confidence and likelihood of later correcting the initial mistaken response was reduced. This suggests that the hypercorrection effect may be partially caused by an individual's recognition of the practical value of reading the words correctly.

We examined two issues for the Eriksen task with two types of stimuli, the central target letter of which was flanked with noise (e.g., HHHHH for compatible stimuli and SSHSS for incompatible stimuli). First, we examined whether or not a response-stop function is carried out until the check operation to detect and correct erroneous response readiness has finished (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974). Second, reaction times for incompatible stimuli are not prolonged if only identical noise stimuli are used throughout the block. This phenomenon is called the blocking effect. We then explored whether or not the blocking effect can be caused by the selective inhibition of erroneous response readiness (Eriksen & Schultz, 1979). Sixteen participants (18–29 years old) selectively pressed one of two buttons for the target letter. The results showed that the negative potential related to the response-stop function was enlarged for incompatible stimuli. Moreover, the blocking effect was observed, while erroneous response readiness was still observable for incompatible stimuli. These results suggest that the blocking effect is caused by something other than reciprocal inhibition.

In the Eriksen task, we examined the hypothesis (Iwaki, 1998) that a negative event-related potential, which was enlarged at the frontal site synchronized with the presentation of an erroneous response causing stimulus, is related to the response-stop function. Fourteen subjects responded selectively with their hands to the stimuli that consisted of a central target letter and surrounding compatible noise letters (e.g., HHHHH) or incompatible noise (e.g., SHHHS for small-conflict condition or SSHSS for large-conflict). The results showed that the increased negativity for the incompatible stimuli was synchronized with the stimulus onset but not with the response. Based on the hypothesis above, it is predicted that greater enhancement of an erroneous response by a stimulus causes the response-stop to work harder in order to avoid an error, and this results in the larger negativity. This was supported by the evidence showing that the negativity was largest for the large-conflict incompatible stimulus, followed by the small-conflict, and then the compatible. We also discuss the possibility that the negativity is the NO-GO potential concerned with the response-stop function.

An experimental apparatus with the blank-holder or die plate vibrated in a radial mode was constructed in order to make the apparatus compact. The application of 20 and 28 kHz oscillation increases the LDR from 2.68 to 3.01, from 2.58 to 2.94 and from 2.38 to 2.77 respectively, in the case of cold rolled steel for deep drawing, cold rolled steel and 304 stainless steel. greater accuracy and deeper cups can be formed by stopping the oscillation after the maximum punch load rather than applying the oscillation throughout the deep drawing process. The radial vibration induces the axial vibration in the blank-holder or die plate and the axial vibration contributes strongly to the rise in the limiting drawing ratio (LDR) rather than the radial one. When one of the blank-holder and die plates is vibrated, the vibration in anti-phase is induced in the other. This means that both the blank-holder and the die plate should be simultaneously vibrated in anti-phase. Seasoning cracks of drawn cups can be avoided when the vibration is applied to the deep drawing process of 304 stainless steel sheets.

Thirteen young adults (ages 21-25) and nine children (ages 7-11) were tested on a visual go/no-go task comparing response times (RTs), error rates, and amplitude and latency changes of error-related negativity (ERN). All experimental conditions were identical for both age groups. Results are consistent with the previous flanker task research showing an increase in ERN amplitude as children age. However, the present results indicate that the peak amplitude of ERN for 9-11 year old children is larger than that of 7-8 year old children, with no difference overall between young adults and children. ERN responses elicited by the flanker task continue to develop until late adolescence. Comparative results suggest that the visual go/no-go task may be more sensitive cognitive measure than the flanker task of mistakes made by children. Differences in time pressure to respond, complexity of the task, and feedback are discussed as possible explanations of differences in the two paradigms.

This research assessed the effect of an observer upon error-related negativity (ERN) in 20 children (ages 7–11): 9 worked alone and 11 worked under the observation of a friend of theirs (alone/audience groups). Erroneous motor responses were recorded to Go and No-Go visual stimuli (triangles in different orientations) at three brain sites (Fz, Cz, and Pz). Results for children were consistent with past adult studies in showing a significantly larger ERN only to erroneous responses in both the alone and the audience groups. Children in the audience group produced larger ERNs than those in the alone group. Furthermore, older children (ages 9–11) produced larger ERNs than younger children (ages 7–8) in both groups. These findings were discussed in the context of an action monitoring system that regulates responses, detects errors, and entrains affective responses associated with correct and incorrect responses.

This study examined the hypothesis (Eriksen & Schultz, 1979) that a subject checks whether a prepared response is correct or not in the Eriksen and Eriksen (1974) cognitive conflict task, using event-related potentials (ERPs). Fourteen right-handed subjects were required to respond selectively to a central target letter flanked with compatible (e.g., HHHHHHH) or incompatible (e.g., SSSHSSS) noise letters, or not to respond to asterisks (*******). The results showed that the lateralized readiness potential indicating an incorrect preparation and the NO-GO potential reflecting a response inhibition emerged for incompatible stimuli. These findings indicate that a prepared response was recognized as erroneous, and was inhibited. Therefore, it is suggested that the check operation functioned in the cognitive conflict task. Furthermore, the result that the NO-GO potential latency for incompatible stimuli was longer than that for NO-GO stimuli suggests that the timing of NO-GO decision and response inhibition by the check operation influenced the NO-GO potential latency.

This study examined whether cognitive conflict, reported by Eriksen and Eriksen (1974), could be explained by a model of reciprocal inhibition between correct and incorrect response preparation. Subjects responded selectively to a central target letter with flanking compatible (e.g., HHHHH) or incompatible (e.g., SSHSS) noise letters. In the mixed condition all four stimuli were mixed randomly in a block, and in the blocked condition only two stimuli with identical noises were used. The results showed that the reaction times to incompatible stimuli were delayed in the mixed condition compared with that to compatible stimuli, while the delay was significantly reduced in the blocked condition. This blocking effect was also shown on P3 latencies, an event-related potential measure of stimulus evaluation, but not on lateralized readiness potentials (LRPs), a measure of response preparation. Furthermore, irrespective of blocked/mixed conditions, LRPs indicating incorrect preparation were observed. These findings suggest that cognitive conflict could not be explained by the reciprocal inhibition model based on response preparation, but by a model based on stimulus evaluation.