Neural and computational evidence for a predictive learning account of the testing effect
Chen, H.; Verbeke, P.; Mattioni, S.; Calderon, C. B.; Verguts, T.
Show abstract
Testing enhances memory more than studying. Although numerous studies have demonstrated the robustness of this classic effect, its neural and computational origin remains debated. Predictive learning is a potential mechanism behind this phenomenon: Because predictions and prediction errors (mismatch between predictions and feedback) are more likely to be generated in testing (relative to in studying), testing can benefit more from predictive learning. We shed light on the testing effect from a multi-level analysis perspective via a combination of cognitive neuroscience experiments (fMRI) and computational modeling. Behaviorally and computationally, only a model incorporating predictive learning can account for the full breadth of behavioral patterns and the robust testing effect. At the neural level, testing and prediction error both activate the canonical reward-related brain areas in the ventral striatum, insula, and midbrain. Crucially, back sorting analysis revealed that activation in the ventral striatum, insula, and midbrain can enhance declarative memory. These results provide strong and converging evidence for a predictive learning account of the testing effect. Significance StatementAn exam is not a neutral measurement of memory. The testing effect entails that a test (e.g., an exam), is more effective than study for learning and memory. The same effect can be harnessed also before events of significance take place, rendering it an important aspect of an active learning strategy. Nevertheless, its origin remains unknown. We propose a novel predictive learning account, which posits that testing (vs studying) facilitates predictions about study material and promotes learning from prediction errors. Computationally, the testing effect was explained through a predictive-learning-based neural network. Neurally, testing and prediction error activate common neural areas, which in turn enhance declarative memory. This account may extend beyond testing to support active learning.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Proactive and reactive construction of memory-based preferences 97%
- Think Like an Expert: Neural Alignment Predicts Understanding in Students Taking an Introduction to Computer Science Course 96%
- Goal congruency dominates reward value in accounting for behavioral and neural correlates of value-based decision-making 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Brain network dynamics predict moments of surprise across contexts 95%
- A brain-based universal measure of attention: predicting task-general and task-specific attention performance and their underlying neural mechanisms from task and resting state fMRI 95%
- Distractor-specific control adaptation in multidimensional environments 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.