ArticleMemory & cognition2024
Experiential traces first: Does holding a location in visuospatial working memory affect the processing of space-associated words?
Article in Memory & cognition, 2024. 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
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
This study aimed to systematically examine whether actively maintaining a visual location in working memory can influence the processing of spatially related words. In five experiments, we asked participants to maintain either the location or the shape of a visually presented stimulus in working memory so that it could later be compared with a test stimulus concerning the relevant target features. In between, we presented participants with words that refer to objects typically encountered in the upper or lower vertical space (roof vs. root, respectively). The task participants performed as a response to these words differed between experiments. In Experiments 1-3, participants performed a lexical decision task, in Experiment 4 they performed a semantic task (deciding whether the word refers to an occupation), and in Experiment 5 they performed a spatial task (deciding whether the word refers to something in the upper or lower visual field.) Only in Experiment 5 did we observe an interaction between the position of the visual stimulus held in working memory (up vs. down) and the meaning of the spatial words (associated with up vs. down). Our results therefore suggest that actively maintaining a stimulus location in working memory does not automatically affect the processing of spatially related words, but does so if the relevant spatial dimension is made highly salient by the task. The results are thus in line with studies showing a strong context-dependency of embodiment effects and thus allow the conclusion that language processing proper is not operating on a sensorimotor representational format.
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.