ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Testing the validity of fluency as a metacognitive cue for judgments of distraction in serial recall.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When forming prospective judgments of distraction, people do not have direct metacognitive access to the cognitive effects of task-irrelevant sounds that determine auditory distraction. Instead, they rely on a fluency heuristic, using the subjective ease or difficulty with which a sound is processed as a metacognitive cue. Empirically, this conclusion is supported by metacognitive illusions, with judgments of distraction failing to align with objective distraction. Here we address why and when the fluency heuristic leads to incorrect or correct judgments of distraction. Specifically, we test the hypothesis that fluency reflects processing at multiple processing stages, not all of which are relevant for auditory distraction in the task at hand. Across two experiments, we manipulated the similarity of words within word sequences at two stages of speech processing. In Experiment 1, conceptual similarity was manipulated to influence fluency at the conceptual processing stage. In Experiment 2, perceptual similarity was manipulated to influence fluency at the perceptual processing stage. In line with the fluency heuristic, participants predicted sequences of similar words-whether conceptually or perceptually similar-to be less distracting than sequences of dissimilar words. Objective distraction in serial recall was unaffected by conceptual similarity but was affected by perceptual similarity. These results suggest that fluency reflects processing at multiple processing stages and thereby influences judgments of distraction, whereas objective distraction depends on whether the corresponding processing stage determines auditory distraction in the task at hand. Metacognitive illusions arise when fluency is generated at processing stages that do not determine auditory distraction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42552501What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.