ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Who said what to whom? Memory for sources and destinations in monolinguals and bilinguals.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. 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
Two experiments with monolingual and bilingual participants tested memory for sources (speakers) and destinations (listeners) in conversations consisting of self-referential statements. In Experiment 1, participants directly interacted in English conversations with audio-visually recorded confederates. In Experiment 2, participants observed recorded conversations among confederates. In both conversational situations, source memory was more accurate than destination memory, indicating that the attentional resources consumed by self-focus or sentence production/completion do not explain why destinations are less well remembered than sources in direct-interaction conversations. Source and destination memory were positively associated with item memory at the participant level, indicating that stronger item encoding is associated with stronger encoding of contextual information. In the observed conversations, source and destination accuracy were negatively associated at the trial level, indicating that these features of the memory episode are not encoded independently, and there is a tradeoff in the encoding of these contextual features. Item memory did not differ for monolinguals and bilinguals and was positively associated with proficiency only in conversations with direct interaction. In the observational setting (but not the direct-interaction setting), source and destination memory were more accurate for bilinguals than monolinguals. This finding suggests that bilinguals allocate attention more efficiently than monolinguals when the cognitive demands of sentence production are eliminated. Proficiency in English was positively associated with memory for the appropriate conversational partner only when participants had to produce sentence frames and complete them with self-generated information, suggesting that language proficiency is beneficial when cognitive demands are high.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38914902What 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.