↓ Skip to main content

Differential Neural Correlates Underlie Judgment of Learning and Subsequent Memory Performance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Differential Neural Correlates Underlie Judgment of Learning and Subsequent Memory Performance
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01699
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haiyan Yang, Ying Cai, Qi Liu, Xiao Zhao, Qiang Wang, Chuansheng Chen, Gui Xue

Abstract

Judgment of learning (JOL) plays a pivotal role in self-regulated learning. Although the JOLs are in general accurate, important deviations from memory performance are often reported, especially when the JOLs are made immediately after learning. Nevertheless, existing studies have not clearly dissociated the neural processes underlying subjective JOL and objective memory. In the present study, participants were asked to study a list of words that would be tested 1 day later. Immediately after learning an item, participants predicted how likely they would remember that item. Critically, the JOL was performed on only half of the studied items to avoid its contamination on subsequent memory. We found that during encoding, compared to items later judged as "will be forgotten," those judged as "will be remembered" showed stronger activities in the default-mode network, including the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (PFC) and posterior cingulate cortex, as well as weaker functional connectivity between the left dorsolateral PFC and the visual cortex. The exact opposite pattern was found when comparing items that were actually remembered with those that were later forgotten. These important neural dissociations between JOL and memory performance shed light on the neural mechanisms of human metamemory bias.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 39%
Neuroscience 9 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 12 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2015.
All research outputs
#13,374,619
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,988
of 29,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,608
of 284,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#249
of 493 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 493 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.