ArticlePerceptual and motor skills2024
No Incidental Memory Advantage for Mixed Handed vs. Consistent Right Handed Participants: Conflicting Results From Earlier Research.
Article in Perceptual and motor skills, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Individuals who vary their preferred hand when performing different types of manual activities, so-called mixed handers (MH), have been frequently reported to outperform individuals with a consistent (right) hand preference (cRH) on tasks assessing declarative-memory functions. For example, in one influential study, this MH advantage extended to incidental learning from presumed "deep" semantic processing of verbal stimuli but not from "shallow" phonemic or structural processing. In the present study, we aimed to replicate this research finding in two separate participant samples. First, in a pre-registered and sample-size planned experiment we confronted 49 participants (23 MH; 26 cRH) with "phonemic" and "semantic" word evaluation tasks (using a within design), followed by a surprise delayed recognition test. In a second experiment, we repeated the same procedure with 65 other participants (31 MH, 34 cRH). A mixed-effect analyses of variance found a significant main effect of Encoding Condition (phonemic vs. semantic tasks) in both experiments (effect size:
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.