1. The tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) state is a universal experience where people feel like they know a word but cannot retrieve it. It is thought that partial recollection of the word's attributes, such as its first letter, contributes to the TOT state.
2. The present study found that participants were more likely to provide partial recollection responses during TOTs than non-TOTs, but were not more accurate in their responses. Under forced-guessing conditions, participants exhibited false partial recollective experience during TOTs.
3. The study suggests that the sense of partial recollection may be a subjective metacognitive state of its own, often illusory and worthy of study in its own right. TOT states can be strategically used to engage in behaviors that positively affect a person’s outcome, but can also lead to biases and potentially irrelevant decision-making.
The article "On the Relationship Between Tip-of-the-Tongue States and Partial Recollective Experience: Illusory Partial Recollective Access During Tip-of-the-Tongue States" explores the relationship between tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) states and partial recollection. The authors argue that TOTs are a form of metacognition, involving both monitoring and control, and can be used strategically to affect behavior. They also suggest that the prevailing theoretical assumption regarding TOTs is that partial target attribute recollection is involved.
The article provides a detailed analysis of the role of TOTs in metacognitive control, including how they affect decisions about whether or not to type partial information responses for unidentified target words. The authors suggest that differences in the tendency to fill the prompt box with a typed partial information response versus leaving it blank as a function of TOT versus non-TOT states could potentially affect partial recollection accuracy rates depending on how those rates are computed.
However, there are some potential biases in the article. For example, the authors assume that TOTs are a universal experience across human cultures and languages without providing evidence to support this claim. Additionally, they focus primarily on free-report conditions rather than exploring other testing conditions that may affect TOTs and partial recollection accuracy rates.
Furthermore, while the authors acknowledge some potential limitations of their study, such as small sample sizes and limited generalizability due to using only English words, they do not fully explore these limitations or provide suggestions for future research to address them.
Overall, while the article provides valuable insights into the relationship between TOTs and partial recollection, it would benefit from more thorough consideration of potential biases and limitations.