ArticlePsychological research2026
Visual-manual response selection produces dual-task interference in auditory-verbal memory encoding.
Article in Psychological research, 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
In the present study, we investigated how response selection in a visual-manual reaction-time (RT) task affects encoding in an auditory-verbal free recall memory task. In dual-task conditions, the visual stimulus was presented first, followed by the auditory memory item after either a short stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) of 300 ms or a long SOA of 700 ms. After the set of memory items was encoded, participants verbally recalled the to-be-remembered items after performing a short distractor activity. The memory task and RT task were also performed in single-task conditions to assess global dual-task costs. Results showed decreased recall accuracy in the memory task in a dual-task condition compared to a single-task condition, reflecting dual-task costs. Moreover, we observed worse memory performance with short SOA compared to long SOA. In addition, in dual-task conditions we analyzed on a trial-level whether a processing conflict in the RT task (i.e., congruency effect) modulated recall accuracy in the memory task. Results showed that recall accuracy was worse for items encoded during incongruent trials of the RT task compared to congruent trials. Together, the findings indicate that memory for auditory items suffers under dual-task demands with visual-manual response selection. In the RT task, we also observed dual-task costs, with longer RT with short SOA compared to long SOA. Overall, the observed dual-task interference can be interpreted in terms of a shared limited capacity between memory encoding and response selection, but also the roles of attentional prioritization, preparatory effects and overlapping verbal codes are discussed.
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.