ArticleExperimental brain research2016
Modality dependence and intermodal transfer in the Corsi Spatial Sequence Task: Screen vs. Floor.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel paradigm to study spatial memory skills in blind individuals through the auditory modality.Scientific reports · 2018Trial
- Perceptual Contaminants to Assessments of Visuospatial Working Memory: The Influences of Path Clutterness and Endpoint Crowding.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- Inter-individual variability (but intra-individual stability) of overt versus covert rehearsal strategies in a digital Corsi task.Journal of vision · 2024Article
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
Four versions of the Corsi Spatial Sequence Task (CSST) were tested in a complete within-subject design, investigating whether participants' performance depends on the modality of task presentation and reproduction that put different demands on spatial processing. Presentation of the sequence (encoding phase) and the reproduction (recall phase) were each carried out either on a computer screen or on the floor of a room, involving actual walking in the recall phase. Combinations of the two different encoding and recall procedures result in the modality conditions Screen-Screen, Screen-Floor, Floor-Screen, and Floor-Floor. Results show the expected decrease in performance with increasing sequence length, which is likely due to processing limitations of working memory. We also found differences in performance between the modality conditions indicating different involvements of spatial working memory processes. Participants performed best in the Screen-Screen modality condition. Floor-Screen and Floor-Floor modality conditions require additional working memory resources for reference frame transformation and spatial updating, respectively; the resulting impairment of the performance was about the same in these two conditions. Finally, the Screen-Floor modality condition requires both types of additional spatial demands and led to the poorest performance. Therefore, we suggest that besides the well-known spatial requirements of CSST, additional working memory resources are demanded in walking CSST supporting processes such as spatial updating, mental rotation, reference frame transformation, and the control of walking itself.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26892885What 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.