251 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18763893)
1. Familiarity and retrieval processes in delayed judgments of learning.
Metcalfe J; Finn B
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 Sep; 34(5):1084-97. PubMed ID: 18763893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. When people's judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: the "Displaced-JOL effect".
Bui Y; Pyc MA; Bailey H
Memory; 2018 Jul; 26(6):771-783. PubMed ID: 29187067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Slow judgments of learning predict familiarity-based memories as measured by the remember-know task.
Jang Y
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2022 Nov; 48(11):1618-1637. PubMed ID: 34516209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Predicting memory performance under conditions of proactive interference: immediate and delayed judgments of learning.
Wahlheim CN
Mem Cognit; 2011 Jul; 39(5):827-38. PubMed ID: 21264574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Judgments of learning (JOLs) selectively improve memory depending on the type of test.
Myers SJ; Rhodes MG; Hausman HE
Mem Cognit; 2020 Jul; 48(5):745-758. PubMed ID: 32124334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect.
Dunlosky J; Nelson TO
Mem Cognit; 1992 Jul; 20(4):374-80. PubMed ID: 1495399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Immediate judgments of learning predict subsequent recollection: evidence from event-related potentials.
Skavhaug IM; Wilding EL; Donaldson DI
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2013 Jan; 39(1):159-66. PubMed ID: 22732027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Judgments of learning: evidence for a two-stage process.
Son LK; Metcalfe J
Mem Cognit; 2005 Sep; 33(6):1116-29. PubMed ID: 16496730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: a meta-analytic review.
Rhodes MG; Tauber SK
Psychol Bull; 2011 Jan; 137(1):131-48. PubMed ID: 21219059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Metacognitive monitoring during criterion learning: when and why are judgments accurate?
Pyc MA; Rawson KA; Aschenbrenner AJ
Mem Cognit; 2014 Aug; 42(6):886-97. PubMed ID: 24643790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. How many dimensions underlie judgments of learning and recall? Evidence from state-trace methodology.
Jang Y; Nelson TO
J Exp Psychol Gen; 2005 Aug; 134(3):308-26. PubMed ID: 16131266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Hindsight bias in metamemory: outcome knowledge influences the recollection of judgments of learning.
Zimdahl MF; Undorf M
Memory; 2021 May; 29(5):559-572. PubMed ID: 33896394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Confidence ratings are better predictors of future performance than delayed judgments of learning.
Putnam AL; Deng W; DeSoto KA
Memory; 2022 May; 30(5):537-553. PubMed ID: 35037570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A model for stochastic drift in memory strength to account for judgments of learning.
Sikström S; Jönsson F
Psychol Rev; 2005 Oct; 112(4):932-50. PubMed ID: 16262474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The testing effect as a function of explicit testing instructions and judgments of learning.
Jönsson FU; Hedner M; Olsson MJ
Exp Psychol; 2012 Jan; 59(5):251-7. PubMed ID: 22580409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Influence of cue word perceptual information on metamemory accuracy in judgement of learning.
Hu X; Liu Z; Li T; Luo L
Memory; 2016; 24(3):383-98. PubMed ID: 25686085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Judgments of learning enhance recall for category-cued but not letter-cued items.
Rivers ML; Dunlosky J; Janes JL; Witherby AE; Tauber SK
Mem Cognit; 2023 Oct; 51(7):1547-1561. PubMed ID: 37173589
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Do judgments of learning predict automatic influences of memory?
Undorf M; Böhm S; Cüpper L
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2016 Jun; 42(6):882-96. PubMed ID: 26595068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Response speeding mediates the contributions of cue familiarity and target retrievability to metamnemonic judgments.
Benjamin AS
Psychon Bull Rev; 2005 Oct; 12(5):874-9. PubMed ID: 16524004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Processing similarity does not improve metamemory: evidence against transfer-appropriate monitoring.
Weaver CA; Kelemen WL
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2003 Nov; 29(6):1058-65. PubMed ID: 14622046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
