Because maximizing the learning of new material is a relevant concern for most individuals, understanding the specific processes involved could be beneficial for people of all ages. Both encoding and monitoring occur during the learning acquisition phase, yet monitoring accuracy and subsequent neural activation have been relatively ignored in the literature. The current research adapts a common metacognitive paradigm using Judgments of Learning (JOLs) to explore the neural differences in monitoring between younger (18-25) and older (65+) adults. Participants were asked to remember natural scenes and predict encoding success by providing a JOL response for each item. Participants were told to respond “will remember” if they believed they would remember that item on a later recognition memory test or “will forget” if they thought they would forget that item on a later recognition memory test. Actual memory performance was compared to predicted memory performance to provide a measure of monitoring accuracy. Individuals reported a JOL response for 150 intact (Easy) and 150 scrambled (Difficult) scenes while in a 3.0T fMRI scanner. Despite minimal differences in behavioral performance, there were several age-related neuroimaging findings of note. When compared to younger adults, older adults had decreases in medial temporal lobe (MTL) activation, as well as contralateral recruitment of the anterior cingulate. Most importantly, the present study also disambiguated structures related to encoding success (the right parahippocampus) and monitoring accuracy (the anterior cingulate). A novel account of neural structures that mediate monitoring is provided both across items varying in difficulty (Easy and Difficult) and across different age groups (Young and Old). Encoding and monitoring are important for learning acquisition and the present research provides the first account that successfully disambiguates the two processes. Results are discussed in reference to their educational implications on resource allocation during the learning of new material.

Research has examined how encoding or retrieval factors affect metamemory. Few studies have manipulated both an encoding and a retrieval factor in the same paradigm. The current experiments examined which factor had a greater impact on metamemory when both were manipulated. Attention was manipulated during encoding and Retroactive Interference was manipulated at retrieval.Two lists of word pairs were studied, with the second list including both new pairs and cues from the first list re-paired with a new target. The attention manipulation occurred when studying the first list in which participants denoted when one tone sequence changed to another. Participants gave predictions about the likelihood of future recall of the original targets either immediately following study (JOL) or in a separate phase after studying all pairs (DJOL). The Modified Opposition Test (MOT) was used in which a hint was used to direct participants to the correct list for recall. After all pairs were studied and predicted, participants completed a cued-recall test. In Experiment 1, DJOLs were used because they are collected between encoding and retrieval. Both factors impacted memory, but DJOLs were only impacted by the retrieval factor. A dissociation between memory and metamemory under retroactive interference was expected and replicates prior research (Eakin, 2005). In Experiment 2, JOLs were added; JOLs are measured during the encoding phase, allowing the impact of the encoding factor to be observed. Replicating Experiment 1, memory was affected by both the encoding and retrieval factor, but JOLs were impacted by the retrieval factor. Another comparison using a standard cued-recall test instead of the MOT, showed that JOLs were no longer influenced by the retrieval factor, but they still did not vary with attention. The results conclusively suggest that metamemory was not based on encoding factors, even when the retrieval factor is not influencing the predictions. Koriat’s (1993, 1994) accessibility heuristic can explain these results. Predictions were based on how much information came to mind when the prediction is made, regardless of whether that information is correct. Furthermore, metamemory predictions are based on heuristics that do not always follow memory outcomes.

The research presented here focused primarily on an attempt to bridge the two literatures of source memory and metameory on the topic of 'monitoring'. The contributions were two-fold: an investigation of the viability of a metacognitive judgment for SM: the judgment of source learning (JOSL), and a simultaneous investigation of the relationship of age and 'monitoring' in source memory and metacognition. In the first experiment, young participants (18-25 years of age) were asked to predict (using JOSLs) whether they would be able to discriminate between pictures that were presented to them during study, images of words they generated during study, or words they never studied in a later memory test. Participants made either immediate or delayed JOSLs (on a 0-100 scale) for each item presented during the study phase. Experiment 2 was a cross-sectional study comparing young and old adults (60-80 years of age) using a modified version of the previous task. In both experiments, intraindividual correlations of JOSLs with SM (gammas) indicated that delayed JOSLs were accurate predictors of future SM performance. There were no effects of age on gamma correlations of JOSLs with SM. Based on these results, although SM showed an age-related deficit, metacognitive predictions of SM did not show this same effect.

Judgments of Learning (JOL) that are made after a delay, instead of immediately after study, are more accurate in terms of predicting later recall (the delayed JOL effect). The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (SFP) theory explains the delayed JOL effect as the result of a testing effect. In the current study we tested the prediction that performing delayed JOLs leads to a memory improvement. During learning, 79 participants studied Swahili-Swedish word pairs, immediately followed by a cued recall test, and then made either one single or three repeated, spaced JOLs. A final cued recall test was given after either 5 minutes or 1 week. Making repeated JOLs did not increase memory performance compared to the single JOL condition, hence lending no support to the SFP theory. However, making repeated JOLs did improve their relative accuracy, which suggests that the delayed JOL effect mainly concerns memory monitoring and not performance.