ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026
Working memory supports rapid talker and accent accommodation: An individual differences investigation.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sequence effects during speech perception reveal multi-accent processing costs.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Lettuce entertain you: Assessing Sandwich Builder as a measure of auditory short-term memory.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Under multitalker listening conditions, listeners appear to rapidly accommodate variability in speaker productions. However, evidence indicates that this trial-to-trial accommodation incurs a processing cost and is amplified by accent differences among talkers. The present study investigated how individual listener differences in working memory capacity and attentional control may predict the degree of processing costs (as measured by response time and accuracy) incurred by trial-to-trial switches in English talkers of first language (L1) American accent and second language (L2) Mandarin Chinese accent. Listeners completed a dual-task experiment with a primary listening task and secondary non-linguistic task as well as measures of working memory capacity (the Word Auditory Recognition and Recall Measure) and attentional control (the Trail Making Test and a Stroop Test). Results indicated that, on trials with a talker switch, listeners with smaller working memory capacities were slower to respond to the secondary task and had poorer recognition accuracy for the primary task. The measures of attentional control did not predict switching costs. One marginal interaction emerged between Stroop test scores (typically used to assess selective attention and inhibitory control) and the accent manipulation, such that listeners with better attentional control had marginally better overall recognition accuracy for L2 accent. Working memory capacity, on the other hand, did not predict differences in recognition accuracy between accent conditions. We conclude that working memory plays a critical role in supporting rapid (trial-to-trial) talker accommodation. Attentional control may support processing of L2 accent more generally but not be critical for rapid accommodation.
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.