ArticleScientific reports2025
Different effects of verbal and visual working memory loads on Language prediction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Predictability effects during reading comprehension are not modulated by a visuospatial working memory load.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Mounting studies suggest that working memory (WM) plays a crucial role in language prediction, but how varying types of WM loads influence language prediction remains unclear. This study investigated whether verbal and visual WM loads differentially impact language predictions during speech comprehension. Using a dual-task paradigm combined with eye-tracking in a visual world setting, we asked 48 participants to complete a sentence comprehension task under concurrent WM load conditions. Participants were divided into two groups, one of which performed a visual dots memory task and the other completed a visual words memory task, with memory load being applied in half of the trials. Results revealed anticipatory gaze towards target objects, suggesting the prediction of upcoming linguistic information. Notably, early fixations during the tonal cue window indicated tonal prediction in spoken sentence processing. Furthermore, WM load significantly disrupted participants' language prediction effects, highlighting the involvement of working memory resources in this process. Importantly, the verbal memory task imposed a more severe disruption to language prediction than the visual memory task, suggesting differential roles of WM subtypes in linguistic prediction. This offers novel insights into how verbal WM and visual-spatial WM differentially influence predictive language processing.
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.