ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Cognitive and metacognitive markers of memory retrieval performance in speech prosody.
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
Prosodic cues in speech - such as F0, intensity, and articulation rate - have been shown to be related to cognitive processes, including memory retrieval. Here we examine whether subtle variations in spoken responses to cues in a paired-associates learning task differentially reflect (a) the availability of the memory trace and (b) the learner's confidence in the response. We asked 40 participants to complete a learning task with spoken retrieval attempts followed by confidence ratings. The acoustic properties of their speech, including F0, intensity, and articulation rate, were analyzed and related to the collected confidence ratings. Results showed that intensity was indicative of objective recall performance (indicative of memory trace availability), while F0 and articulation rate were primarily related to speakers' confidence ratings (indicative of underlying certainty about the response). To evaluate these relationships more formally, we compared three structural equation models reflecting competing accounts: one in which prosody primarily indexes memory strength, one in which it primarily indexes confidence, and a hybrid model in which different features map onto distinct processes. Model comparisons favored the hybrid account, suggesting that intensity is more closely linked to memory strength, whereas F0 and articulation rate track confidence. These findings align with the idea that memory performance and metamemory processes affect distinct prosodic features in speech at separate time points during an utterance. Practically, they suggest that real-time analysis of speech prosody can infer cognitive and metacognitive states without explicit input from the speaker, offering promising applications for speech and memory research as well as educational technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42215850What 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.