ArticleOpen research Europe2025
Gaze cues and arrow cues modulate accuracy of recall of verbal items in a working memory task.
Article in Open research Europe, 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.
- Gaze cues and arrow cues modulate accuracy of recall of verbal items in a working memory task.Open research Europe · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have shown that items that another individual looks at are better remembered than items that are not looked at, whereas the same effect has rarely been observed for non-social cues such as arrows. This pattern of results has been taken as an indication that joint attention improves memory. However, these previous studies have differed in the type of memory being tested and the type of content that is to be remembered: while effects of joint attention on long-term memory were tested with verbal items and non-verbal items, effects on working memory have only been tested with non-verbal items such as colour. Thus, the aim of the current study was to extend these previous findings and investigate whether joint attention influences working memory for verbal items. Methods: In Experiment 1, participants were first presented with an image of a face with eyes that gazed either to the left or to the right. A grid of 4 letters (2x2) was then shown either on the side cued by gaze or on the opposite side. After a retention interval (1000 ms), participants were shown a letter in the centre of the screen and judged whether this letter was part of the grid shown before. In Experiment 2, we followed the same general procedure but one group was presented with gaze cues, and the other group was presented with arrow cues. Results: Across two experiments, our results revealed that participants had better recall of letters that had been cued than letters that had not been cued, regardless of cue type. In contrast, participants' reaction times were not influenced by whether the letter had been cued. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that both social and non-social cues can modulate recall of verbal items such as letters in a working memory task.
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.