![](/PCIRegisteredReports/static/_24.7.1/images/small-background.png)
Exploring multi-sensory benefits in the generation effect of memory
![](/PCIRegisteredReports/static/_24.7.1/images/small-background.png)
From Thought to Senses: Assessing the Presence of a Relationship Between the Generation Effect and Multisensory Facilitation
Abstract
Recommendation: posted 18 July 2024, validated 22 July 2024
Frischkorn, G. (2024) Exploring multi-sensory benefits in the generation effect of memory. Peer Community in Registered Reports, . https://rr.peercommunityin.org/PCIRegisteredReports/articles/rec?id=711
Recommendation
Exploring multisensory aspects of the generation effect, the study has the potential to provide new insights into cognitive processing and memory enhancement. It is well rooted in established theories of the generation effect and multisensory facilitation, deducing a reasonable hypothesis that multisensory processing amplifies the generation effect. By implementing a 2 (Task Type: generate vs. read) x 3 (Sensory Modality: auditory, visual, multisensory) factorial design, it ensures a comprehensive evaluation of multisensory benefits in the generation effect. The findings could inform multisensory learning strategies in educational contexts, enhancing teaching methods and learning outcomes.
Based on these considerations and two rounds of in-depth review, the recommender awarded in-principle acceptance of the study proposal. Its strong theoretical foundation and well-conceived methodology make it a valuable contribution to the fields of cognitive and educational psychology.
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article.
Evaluation round #2
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/mk75j
Version of the report: 1
Author's Reply, 30 Jun 2024
Decision by Gidon Frischkorn
, posted 25 Jun 2024, validated 25 Jun 2024
Dear Mrs Ritchie,
thank you for your revised submission to PCI: Registered Reports. As you can see the reviewers evaluated your revised report generally positively. I agree that the revision addressed the raised issues mostly well.
There are a few points raised by one reviewer left that I think you should respond to, to clarify the rationale underlying all decisions with respect to the proposed study. In addition, I agree that conducting an additional power analyses for the interaction that is investigated in H2 seems highly relevant, as this is the core target of the current study. I also want to raise awareness with respect to the problems of post-hoc power calculations based on observed effects (for more details see O'Keefe, 2007).
I think most of these points are mostly minor and thus I look forward to recieving a revised version of your report. Please be aware that PCI:Registered Report is closed for submissions during the summer time (1st of July until 1st of September). If it is possible for you, you can still submit your revision until the 1st of July. If that is not feasible for you, then you have to wait to submit your revision after the 1st of September.
Kind regards,
Gidon Frischkorn
References
O’Keefe, D. J. (2007). Brief Report: Post Hoc Power, Observed Power, A Priori Power, Retrospective Power, Prospective Power, Achieved Power: Sorting Out Appropriate Uses of Statistical Power Analyses. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(4), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450701641375
Reviewed by Sharon Bertsch, 24 Jun 2024
Hi Michaela,
Thanks for addressing my comments. I liked the idea of the confidence ratings, perhaps you could collect the data in an exploratory fashion without constructing a hypothesis about it's behavior ahead of time. It could end up being used as a mediating variable down the road.
Best of Luck,
Sharon Bertsch
Reviewed by Vanessa Loaiza
, 07 Jun 2024
Thanks to the authors for addressing many of my concerns. However, there are still a few remaining issues that I explain further in the attached:
1. Fully within-subjects design: The authors did not address why they plan to use a mixed design. Besides affording more power (see next), the use of the Nelson norms as stimuli gives plenty of options so that the cell size could increase, in case that was at all a barrier to a fully within-subjects design. I do not insist on this, but it seems like it would address likely issues of power.
2. Power: Thanks for the clarity here, but since an interaction is predicted (H2), it needs to be powered for, not just the main effect of generate vs. read. If sticking with the mixed design, many more participants than 69 (which I assume is the total) will likely be needed.
3. Inconsistencies/difficulties with the conditions explained in the Method section: I have given advice about how to make certain aspects of the Method easier to read/understand and making sure everything is clearly specified and consistent across conditions.
I would qualify these as relatively minor issues, and if anything a little bit fussy of me on the last point, but for sure powering for an interaction is pretty important.
Download the review
Evaluation round #1
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/mk75j
Version of the report: 1
Author's Reply, 23 May 2024
Decision by Gidon Frischkorn
, posted 04 Apr 2024, validated 04 Apr 2024
Dear Mrs Ritchie,
thank you for sending your study proposal to PCI:Registered Reports for recommendation. I have recieved two reviews on your study poposal and read the proposal myself. Both reviewers and I agree that your proposal is well written and conceptually sound. Nonetheless both reviewers raised some concerns that need to be addressed before I can recommend this report. I think the reviewers have provided very clear points and criticism and I think you should try to address all of them. Their comments are attached below.
If you feel that you can revise your report accordingly, I look forward to a resubmission of your report.
Kind regards, Gidon Frischkorn
Reviewed by Vanessa Loaiza, 27 Mar 2024
The current manuscript proposes an experiment crossing the generation effect (i.e., the finding that generating words yields better memory performance compared to reading words) and the multisensory facilitation effect (i.e., the finding that presenting information in two modalities, such as audiovisual, yields better memory performance compared to unisensory presentation, such as presenting only in auditory or visual format). Thus, the proposed design will follow a 2 (task: generate, read) x 3 (modality: auditory, visual, audiovisual) mixed design, with participants reading or generating words presented with related cues in different modality formats. An overall generation effect is expected, replicating extensive prior literature, as well as an interaction, such that the generation effect is stronger for audiovisual (multisensory) formats compared to audio-only or visual-only (unisensory) formats.
Overall, the proposed study is sensible and well-justified in the literature presented in the Introduction. I think that there are some things that the authors should consider before proceeding. I have outlined them below, but I also attach the preprint with my comments that will hopefully be easier to see what I mean by these comments.
1. First, I think that the hypotheses could be streamlined/simpler. As I explain further in the comments, I think that they should be presented in reverse order to what is presented now: an overall generation effect is predicted (H1) that will be further qualified by an interaction, such that the generation effect is stronger for multisensory versus unisensory formats (H2). The proposed analysis section should then map these hypotheses onto the relevant analysis and expected result more explicitly.
2. I am not sure why the current methodological approach is presentation via flashcards. It seems not very ideal or consistent with typical cognitive research nowadays that uses computer presentation to reduce any impacts of irrelevant factors. My comments give further advice about what can be done instead, which further allow making the design fully within-subjects.
3. There are various other methodological details missing, such as the precise effect size powered for, who the participants are/their compensation, what constitutes performing the task incorrectly to warrant exclusion, and how the word pair stimuli were created along with their plausible lure options (and if the latter are also counterbalanced/randomized). Regarding the latter point, it would be more reassuring if these stimuli were already established in prior work, and I also recommend simply doing a cued recall test rather than a recognition test given that it seems like the lure options in a 3AFC recognition test could be rejected because they are not sufficiently plausible as alternatives. All of these points are detailed in my comments in the manuscript.
4. The current prediction of an interaction is actually an ordinal one, where the generation effect is expected for each modality condition but is simply stronger in the audiovisual condition. Unfortunately these are ambiguous interactions to interpret (see Loftus, 1978; Wagenmakers et al., 2012). What could be done to circumvent this issue is to transform the data and conduct the analysis again, both on the regular data and the transformed data, to show that the interaction still occurs in both cases, in which case it is unlikely to be attributable to an artifact of scale. There is a recent example of this in a recent paper that is also a registered report (Labaronne et al., 2023). Furthermore, the nature of the interaction is important for the language used in interpretation. If the generation effect is "accounted for by the multisensory facilitation effect" (page 19), then there should only be a generation effect in the multisensory condition and not the other unisensory conditions. However, if the multisensory format simply enhances the generation effect, then the predicted interaction would emerge. I also think that there are various places in the introduction that the link between different concepts (i.e., congruence/redundancy) could be spelled out more explicitly with relation to the nuance of this prediction.
References cited in this review
Labaronne, M., Jarjat, G., & Plancher, G. (2023). Attentional Refreshing in the Absence of Long-Term Memory Content: Role of Short-Term and Long-Term Consolidation. Journal of Cognition, 6(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.246
Loftus, G. R. (1978). On the interpretation of interactions. Memory & Cognition, 6, 312–319. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197461
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Krypotos, A.-M., Criss, A. H., & Iverson, G. (2012). On the interpretation of removable interactions: A survey of the field 33 years after Loftus. Memory & Cognition, 40(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0158-0
Download the review