ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Study-test overlap rather than multisensory integration benefits memory.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. 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
Previous research has obtained better memory performance for items that were studied in two modalities than in one modality. We investigated the role of multisensory integration and of study-test overlap. Items were presented once as unimodal (picture or sound), once as bimodal (picture and sound), or twice as unimodal (once as picture, once as sound) stimuli in a continuous recognition task. In Experiment 1 we found a benefit for items that were studied in both modalities. The benefit did not depend on temporal alignment of picture and sound, which poses problems for multisensory integration as an explanation. In Experiment 2 we found that repetition of items in the same modality resulted in better memory performance than repetition in different modalities, and we found that memory performance was better when study and test format were the same than when they were different, supporting a role for encoding specificity. We conclude that multimodal presentation during study benefits memory only when the test item is also multimodal. Moreover, this benefit is more likely explained by study-test overlap than by 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.