ArticleMemory & cognition2021
The effect of motor engagement on memory: Testing a motor-induced encoding account.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Limits of Agency: Young Children's Memory May Not Benefit From Choice.Collabra. Psychology · 2025Article
- The attentional boost effect reflects both enhanced memory for target-paired objects and impaired memory for distractor-paired objects.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2024Article
- Sense of agency may not improve recollection and familiarity in recognition memory.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Concurrent target detection is associated with better memory for object exemplars.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2022Article
- Motor engagement enhances incidental memory for task-irrelevant items.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The motor system is traditionally thought to reflect the output of cognition. However, the inverse relationship of how the motor system impacts cognitive processes is less known. Work on this interaction has demonstrated that recognition memory for stimuli presented in combination with the inhibition of a prepared action is weaker compared to stimuli associated with the execution of an action (Chiu & Egner, Psychological Science, 26, 27-38, 2015a). This effect has been explained through competition for common neural resources: to the extent that response inhibition processes are recruited, fewer resources are available for memory encoding (Chiu & Egner, Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 11936-11945, 2015b). Alternatively, it has been proposed that action execution enhances memory encoding (Yebra et al., Nature Communications, 10(1), 1-12, 2019). In this report, we examined how recognition memory for stimuli paired with both the preparation and execution of a motor response compare to stimuli absent of any motor processes. We first replicated Chiu and Egner (2015a, 2015b). Next, we added a motor-neutral condition as a baseline comparison. Across three experiments, recognition memory for stimuli associated with action execution was superior to stimuli absent of motor demands. More importantly, we found that recognition memory for stimuli associated with motor preparation, but no subsequent execution, was also superior to stimuli that did not engage the motor system (Experiments 2a and 2b). These results support a motor-induced encoding effect, in which the degree of motor processing (both action preparation and action execution) enhanced memory encoding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33159284What 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.