ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024
Explicit and implicit memory for the QWERTY keyboard: the role of motor simulation and deictic gestures.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Are fluent letter dyads really fluent? An update on objective and subjective motor fluency in an Italian student population.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
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
In three experiments, we investigated explicit and implicit knowledge about the location of letters on the QWERTY keyboard in young students, and the mechanisms involved. Participants completed a verbal report task in which they were asked to locate the 21 letters of the Italian alphabet on a blank QWERTY keyboard (explicit memory). Subsequently, they carried out a motor production task, i.e., typing letters on a blank keyboard (implicit memory). Consistent with previous studies and several theories emphasizing the importance of implicit knowledge in typing, results showed that explicit knowledge about the QWERTY keyboard is systematically worse than procedural knowledge (Experiment 1). These two types of knowledge, however, are related. Second, we showed that explicit memory for letter position was affected when participants were engaged in a secondary task that required hands/arms movements. Specifically, loading participants' sensorimotor resources led to a decrease in explicit memory performance when the secondary task required hand/arm movements (hand/arms tapping) compared to when it required legs-feet movements (control condition). This result suggests that explicit knowledge is modulated by sensorimotor simulation (Experiment 2). Third, compared to a purely verbal response, pointing to the key on the keyboard did not improve explicit memory accuracy (Experiment 3). Taken together, the results indicate that sensorimotor simulation, and not just gestures, modulates the accessibility to explicit mental representations of verbal/spatial material, like letters on a keyboard.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38135782What 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.