Explicitly predicting outcomes enhances learning of expectancy-violating information.
Active learning
Prediction error
Pupillometry
Surprise
Violation of expectation
Journal
Psychonomic bulletin & review
ISSN: 1531-5320
Titre abrégé: Psychon Bull Rev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9502924
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
accepted:
08
05
2022
pubmed:
30
6
2022
medline:
25
2
2023
entrez:
29
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Predictive coding models suggest that the brain constantly makes predictions about what will happen next based on past experiences. Learning is triggered by surprising events, i.e., a prediction error. Does it benefit learning when these predictions are made deliberately, so that an individual explicitly commits to an outcome before experiencing it? Across two experiments, we tested whether generating an explicit prediction before seeing numerical facts boosts learning of expectancy-violating information relative to doing so post hoc. Across both experiments, predicting boosted memory for highly unexpected outcomes, leading to a U-shaped relation between expectedness and memory. In the post hoc condition, memory performance decreased with increased unexpectedness. Pupillary data of Experiment 2 further indicated that the pupillary surprise response to highly expectancy-violating outcomes predicted successful learning of these outcomes. Together, these findings suggest that generating an explicit prediction increases learners' stakes in the outcome, which particularly benefits learning of those outcomes that are different than expected.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35768657
doi: 10.3758/s13423-022-02124-x
pii: 10.3758/s13423-022-02124-x
pmc: PMC9722848
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2192-2201Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Curr Biol. 2021 Jan 11;31(1):163-172.e4
pubmed: 33188745
Trends Neurosci. 2011 Oct;34(10):536-47
pubmed: 21851992
Psychon Bull Rev. 2021 Dec;28(6):1839-1847
pubmed: 33768503
Front Neurosci. 2011 Sep 30;5:115
pubmed: 21994487
Nature. 2020 Nov;587(7832):87-91
pubmed: 33116309
Nat Neurosci. 2018 Aug;21(8):1019-1021
pubmed: 30038278
Child Dev. 2020 Nov;91(6):2221-2236
pubmed: 31891189
Behav Brain Sci. 2016 Jan;39:e200
pubmed: 26126507
J Neurosci. 2018 Feb 7;38(6):1558-1574
pubmed: 29301874
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2005;28:403-50
pubmed: 16022602
Trends Neurosci. 2012 Apr;35(4):211-9
pubmed: 22398180
Cognition. 2019 Jun;187:108-125
pubmed: 30856476
Dev Sci. 2020 May;23(3):e12916
pubmed: 31626721
Dev Sci. 2017 Nov;20(6):
pubmed: 29076268
Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 Jul;11(7):280-9
pubmed: 17548232
Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2021 Apr;180:107412
pubmed: 33609740
Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2021 Mar;179:107382
pubmed: 33476747
Nat Commun. 2020 Jul 10;11(1):3451
pubmed: 32651370
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006 Aug;91(2):295-315
pubmed: 16881766
Hippocampus. 2010 Nov;20(11):1315-26
pubmed: 20928831
Child Dev. 2021 Jan;92(1):258-272
pubmed: 32677082
Child Dev. 2021 Sep;92(5):2128-2141
pubmed: 33969879
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010 Feb;11(2):127-38
pubmed: 20068583
Top Cogn Sci. 2019 Jan;11(1):50-74
pubmed: 28940761
Neuron. 2016 Jan 6;89(1):221-34
pubmed: 26711118
Learn Mem. 2021 Oct 18;28(11):422-434
pubmed: 34663695
NPJ Sci Learn. 2019 Oct 21;4:17
pubmed: 31646002
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2019 Feb;148(2):325-341
pubmed: 30394766