We examined the effects of processing fluency on metamemory for written music. In Experiment 1, piano players studied short sequences notated in either treble or bass clef by playing them on a silent keyboard with either their left or right hand, creating a congruent (fluent) and an incongruent (dysfluent) condition (hand/clef match or mismatch, respectively). A subsequent recognition test accompanied by confidence ratings (CRs) gauged retrospective metamemory. Items in the congruent conditions were recognized better (a desirable-difficulty effect), but CRs showed that participants were unaware of this memory difference. In Experiment 2, judgments of learning (JOLs) followed each studied sequence to gauge prospective metamemory. JOLs were higher in the congruent condition, although recognition was unaffected. In Experiment 3, whether the music was fingered on the silent keyboard or not did not influence results. These data are discussed within the framework of metacognitive theories that emphasize the importance of processing fluency.
AbushanabB.BisharaA. J. (2013). Memory and metacognition for piano melodies: Illusory advantages of fixed- over random-order practice. Memory and Cognition, 41, 928–937. doi: 10.3758/s13421–013–0311-z.
2.
BjorkR. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In MetcalfeJ.ShimamuraA. (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
BjorkR. A. (2017). Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In WallaceI.KirkmanL. (Eds.), Best of the best: Progress (pp. 81–85). Carmarthen, UK: Crown House.
DunloskyJ.TauberS. K. (2014). Understanding people’s metacognitive judgments: An isomechanism framework and its implications for applied and theoretical research. In PerfectT.LindsayD. S. (Eds.) Handbook of applied memory (pp. 444–464). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
EfklidesA. (2016). Metamemory and affect. In DunloskyJ.TauberS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 245–268). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
7.
FinneyS. A.PalmerC. (2003). Auditory feedback and memory for music performance: Sound evidence for an encoding effect. Memory & Cognition, 31, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196082
8.
HoppeC.SplittstößerC.FliessbachK.TrautnerP.ElgerC. E.WeberB. (2014). Silent music reading: Auditory imagery and visuotonal modality transfer in singers and non-singers. Brain and Cognition, 91, 35–54. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2011.10.008
9.
JemstedtA.SchwartzB. L.JönssonF. U. (2018). Ease of learning judgments are based on both processing fluency and beliefs. Memory, 26, 807–815. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2017.1410849
10.
JiaX.LiP.LiX.ZhangY.CaoW.CaoL.LiW. (2016). The effect of word frequency on judgments of learning: Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01995.
11.
KelleyC. M.LindsayD. S. (1993). Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1001
12.
KnollA. R.OtaniH.SkeelR. L.Van HornK. R. (2016). Learning style, judgements of learning, and learning of verbal and visual information. British Journal of Psychology, 108, 544–583. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12214
13.
KorenmanL. M.PeynircioğluZ. F. (2004). The role of familiarity in episodic memory and metamemory for music. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 917–922. doi: 10.1037/0278–7393.30.4.917
14.
KornellN.FinnB. (2016). Self-regulated learning: An overview of theory and data. In DunloskyJ.TauberS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metamemory, pp. 325–340. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
LemanM.MaesP. J.NijsL.Van DyckE. (2018). What is embodied music cognition? In BaderR. (Ed.), Springer handbook of systematic musicology (pp. 747–760). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
16.
MeijsM.HurksP. P. M.WassenbergR.FeronF. J. M.JollesJ. (2015) Inter-individual differences in how presentation modality affects verbal learning performance in children aged 5 to 16. Child Neuropsychology, 22, 818–836. doi: 10.1080/09297049.2015.1044891
17.
MillerN. A. (2016). Musical listening and kinesthesis: Is there an audio-vocal tuning system?Psychomusicology, 26, 117–131.
18.
MitchumA. L.KelleyC. M.FoxM.C. (2016). When asking the question changes the ultimate answer: Metamemory judgments change memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 200–219. doi: 10.1037/a0039923
19.
MuellerM. L.DunloskyJ. (2017). How beliefs can impact judgments of learning: Evaluating analytic processing theory with beliefs about fluency. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 245–258. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.008
20.
PatelA. D. (2008). Music, language, and the brain. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21.
PeynircioğluZ. F.BrandlerB. J.HohmanT. J.KnutsonN. (2014). Metacognitive judgments in music performance. Psychology of Music, 42, 748–762.
22.
PeynircioğluZ. F.RabinovitzB. E.ThompsonJ. L. W. (2008). Memory and metamemory for songs: The relative effectiveness of titles, lyrics, and melodies as cues for each other. Psychology of Music, 36, 47–61. doi.org/10.1177/0305735607079722
23.
PeynircioğluZ. F.TatzJ.R. (2018). Intensifying the intensity illusion in judgments of learning: Modality and cue combinations. Memory & Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2016.1258388
24.
PeynircioğluZ. F.TekcanA. İ.BaxterT. L.WagnerJ. L.ShafferS. D. (1998). Name or hum that tune: Feeling of knowing for music. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1131–1137. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201190
25.
ReitzC. L. (2014). Notation. In ThompsonW. F. (Ed.), Music in the social and behavioral sciences: An encyclopedia (pp. 817–820). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
RhodesM. G. (2016). Judgments of learning: Methods, data, and theory. In DunloskyJ.TauberS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 65–80). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
27.
RhodesM. G.CastelA. D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 615–625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013684
28.
SchellenbergE. G. (2016). Music training and nonmusical abilities. In HallamS.CrossI.ThautM. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of music psychology (2nd ed., pp. 415–429). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29.
SchiavioA.TimmersR. (2016). Motor and audiovisual learning consolidate auditory memory of tonally ambiguous melodies. Music Perception, 34, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2016.34.1.21
30.
SungkhasetteeV.W.FriedmanM.C.CastelA. D. (2011). Memory and metamemory for inverted words: Illusions of competency and desirable difficulties. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 973–978. doi: 10.3758/s13423–011–0114–9
31.
SusserJ. A.MulliganN. W. (2015). The effect of motoric fluency on metamemory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1014–1019. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000189
32.
TauberS. K.DunloskyJ.RawsonK. A. (2015). The influence of retrieval practice versus delayed judgments of learning on Memory: Resolving a memory-metamemory paradox. Experimental Psychology, 62, 254–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1618–3169/a000296
33.
UndorfM.SöllnerA.BröderA. (2018). Simultaneous utilization of multiple cues in judgments of learning. Memory and Cognition, 46, 507–519. doi: 10.3758/s13421–017–0780–6
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
