ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Exploring the effects of audiovisual incongruence on working memory performance in the combined 2-back+ Go/NoGo paradigm.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The human brain processes 83% of information visually and 11% auditorily, with visual perception dominating multisensory integration. While audiovisual congruence enhances cognitive performance, the impact of audiovisual incongruence on working memory (WM) remains controversial. This study investigated how audiovisual incongruence affects WM performance under varying cognitive loads. Methods: Two experiments employed a dual 2-back+Go/NoGo paradigm with 120 college students. Experiment 1 used alphanumeric stimuli (numbers/letters), while Experiment 2 utilized complex picture stimuli. Participants completed WM tasks under three conditions: visual-only, auditory-only, and incongruent audiovisual. Performance comparisons between unimodal and cross-modal conditions were analyzed using paired-samples t-tests. Results: Experiment 1 revealed visual interference on auditory WM (p <.05) but minimal auditory interference on visual WM. Experiment 2 demonstrated bidirectional interference between modalities (both Discussion: Audiovisual incongruence systematically disrupts WM performance, challenging conventional sensory dominance models. While low cognitive load permits strategic visual prioritization, high load triggers competitive cross-modal interactions. These findings suggest adaptive resource allocation mechanisms in WM that supersede strict visual supremacy principles, highlighting the context-dependent nature of multisensory integration.
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.