Limits...
Concurrent Dynamics of Category Learning and Metacognitive Judgments

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

In two experiments, we examined the correspondence between the dynamics of metacognitive judgments and classification accuracy when participants were asked to learn category structures of different levels of complexity, i.e., to learn tasks of types I, II, and III according to Shepard et al. (1961). The stimuli were simple geometrical figures varying in the following three dimensions: color, shape, and size. In Experiment 1, we found moderate positive correlations between confidence and accuracy in task type II and weaker correlation in task type I and III. Moreover, the trend analysis in the backward learning curves revealed that there is a non-linear trend in accuracy for all three task types, but the same trend was observed in confidence for the task type I and II but not for task type III. In Experiment 2, we found that the feeling-of-warmth judgments (FOWs) showed moderate positive correlation with accuracy in all task types. Trend analysis revealed a similar non-linear component in accuracy and metacognitive judgments in task type II and III but not in task type I. Our results suggest that FOWs are a more sensitive measure of the progress of learning than confidence because FOWs capture global knowledge about the category structure, while confidence judgments are given at the level of an individual exemplar.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Mean accuracy (A), feeling-of-warmth judgments (B), and log10 transformed response times (C) in the last five learning blocks. Results are shown separately for all participants (left column) and for participants who successfully learned all three tasks (right column). Blocks are counted relative to the end of the learning session. Error bars represent 95% within-subjects confidence intervals computed following Cousineau (2005) and Morey (2008).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5037202&req=5

Figure 2: Mean accuracy (A), feeling-of-warmth judgments (B), and log10 transformed response times (C) in the last five learning blocks. Results are shown separately for all participants (left column) and for participants who successfully learned all three tasks (right column). Blocks are counted relative to the end of the learning session. Error bars represent 95% within-subjects confidence intervals computed following Cousineau (2005) and Morey (2008).

Mentions: We analyzed accuracy and FOW judgments in the BLCs using three separate 5 × 3 MANOVAs with the block (-4, -3, -2, -1, 0) and the task (I, II, III) as within-participant factors. Means and within-subjects confidence intervals across all conditions are plotted in Figure 2.


Concurrent Dynamics of Category Learning and Metacognitive Judgments
Mean accuracy (A), feeling-of-warmth judgments (B), and log10 transformed response times (C) in the last five learning blocks. Results are shown separately for all participants (left column) and for participants who successfully learned all three tasks (right column). Blocks are counted relative to the end of the learning session. Error bars represent 95% within-subjects confidence intervals computed following Cousineau (2005) and Morey (2008).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5037202&req=5

Figure 2: Mean accuracy (A), feeling-of-warmth judgments (B), and log10 transformed response times (C) in the last five learning blocks. Results are shown separately for all participants (left column) and for participants who successfully learned all three tasks (right column). Blocks are counted relative to the end of the learning session. Error bars represent 95% within-subjects confidence intervals computed following Cousineau (2005) and Morey (2008).
Mentions: We analyzed accuracy and FOW judgments in the BLCs using three separate 5 × 3 MANOVAs with the block (-4, -3, -2, -1, 0) and the task (I, II, III) as within-participant factors. Means and within-subjects confidence intervals across all conditions are plotted in Figure 2.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

In two experiments, we examined the correspondence between the dynamics of metacognitive judgments and classification accuracy when participants were asked to learn category structures of different levels of complexity, i.e., to learn tasks of types I, II, and III according to Shepard et al. (1961). The stimuli were simple geometrical figures varying in the following three dimensions: color, shape, and size. In Experiment 1, we found moderate positive correlations between confidence and accuracy in task type II and weaker correlation in task type I and III. Moreover, the trend analysis in the backward learning curves revealed that there is a non-linear trend in accuracy for all three task types, but the same trend was observed in confidence for the task type I and II but not for task type III. In Experiment 2, we found that the feeling-of-warmth judgments (FOWs) showed moderate positive correlation with accuracy in all task types. Trend analysis revealed a similar non-linear component in accuracy and metacognitive judgments in task type II and III but not in task type I. Our results suggest that FOWs are a more sensitive measure of the progress of learning than confidence because FOWs capture global knowledge about the category structure, while confidence judgments are given at the level of an individual exemplar.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus