ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023
Comparing auditory and visual aspects of multisensory working memory using bimodally matched feature patterns.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Working memory (WM) reflects the transient maintenance of information in the absence of external input, which can be attained via multiple senses separately or simultaneously. Pertaining to WM, the prevailing literature suggests the dominance of vision over other sensory systems. However, this imbalance may be stemming from challenges in finding comparable stimuli across modalities. Here, we addressed this problem by using a balanced multisensory retro-cue WM design, which employed combinations of auditory (ripple sounds) and visuospatial (Gabor patches) patterns, adjusted relative to each participant's discrimination ability. In three separate experiments, the participant was asked to determine whether the (retro-cued) auditory and/or visual items maintained in WM matched or mismatched the subsequent probe stimulus. In Experiment 1, all stimuli were audiovisual, and the probes were either fully mismatching, only partially mismatching, or fully matching the memorized item. Experiment 2 was otherwise same as Experiment 1, but the probes were unimodal. In Experiment 3, the participant was cued to maintain only the auditory or visual aspect of an audiovisual item pair. In two of the three experiments, the participant matching performance was significantly more accurate for the auditory than visual attributes of probes. When the perceptual and task demands are bimodally equated, auditory attributes can be matched to multisensory items in WM at least as accurately as, if not more precisely than, their visual counterparts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.