Department of Psychology, American University.
Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2021 Mar;47(3):481-497. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000953. Epub 2020 Oct 8.
According to the principle of inverse effectiveness (PIE), weaker responses to information in one modality (i.e., unisensory) benefit more from additional information in a second modality (i.e., multisensory; Meredith & Stein, 1986). We suggest that the PIE may also inform whether perceptual fluency affects judgments of learning (JOLs). If JOLs follow the PIE, the differences in JOLs for multisensory and unisensory items should increase as the unisensory study items become harder to perceive. That is, an influence of perceptual fluency should prompt a similar, interactive pattern across perceptual responses and JOLs. In 3 experiments, we systematically varied the signal intensity or noise in 1 modality to examine how responses might change with the inclusion of information in a second modality. In Experiment 1, written words in several font sizes were sometimes accompanied by spoken equivalents. In Experiments 2 and 3, spoken words in various background noise levels were sometimes accompanied by visual speech articulations. Consistent with the PIE, the multisensory benefits in response time and/or correct identification increased as responses to unisensory information decreased. Also, the multisensory formats received higher JOLs than the unisensory formats; however, unlike the predictions from PIE, this difference did not increase as study items became harder to perceive. Experiment 3 extended this finding to participants' explicit beliefs. In multisensory settings, JOLs may rely more on theory- than data-driven processes. We suggest that broadly defined processing fluency may always contribute to JOLs, but, regarding perceptual information, JOLs appear to track perceptual attributes rather than perceptual fluency. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
根据逆向效应(PIE)原则,对一种模式(即单感觉)中的信息反应较弱的情况下,另一种模式(即多感觉)中的额外信息会带来更大的益处(Meredith & Stein,1986)。我们认为,PIE 也可以说明知觉流畅性是否会影响学习判断(JOL)。如果 JOL 遵循 PIE,那么多感觉和单感觉项目的 JOL 差异应该随着单感觉学习项目变得更难感知而增加。也就是说,知觉流畅性的影响应该在知觉反应和 JOL 之间产生类似的交互模式。在 3 项实验中,我们系统地改变了一种模式中的信号强度或噪声,以检验在包含另一种模式的信息时,反应会如何变化。在实验 1 中,几种字体大小的书面单词有时会伴有口语等同物。在实验 2 和 3 中,各种背景噪声水平的口语单词有时会伴有视觉言语发音。与 PIE 一致,响应时间和/或正确识别的多感觉优势随着单感觉信息响应的减少而增加。此外,多感觉格式的 JOL 高于单感觉格式;然而,与 PIE 的预测不同,这种差异并没有随着学习项目变得更难感知而增加。实验 3 将这一发现扩展到参与者的明确信念。在多感觉环境中,JOL 可能更多地依赖于理论驱动的过程,而不是数据驱动的过程。我们认为,广义上定义的加工流畅性可能始终会影响 JOL,但就知觉信息而言,JOL 似乎更能反映知觉属性,而不是知觉流畅性。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2021 APA,保留所有权利)。