<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>Camos, Valérie</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Jubin, Jonathan</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Belletier, Clément</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2025</dc:date>
  <dc:description xmlns:ns0="xml" ns0:lang="en">Recent studies showed that the presence of the experimenter hinders executive functions. Belletier and Camos (2018) extended these findings to working memory, reporting a detrimental effect of the experimenter presence only when participants performed an aloud concurrent articulation during maintenance. Under such a condition, participants likely relied on an attentional maintenance mechanism rather that an articulatory mechanism, supporting the account of a capture of attention by the social presence. However, other results using the Stroop Task demonstrate an improvement on executive functions (Garcia-Marques &amp; Fernandes, 2024, for a meta- analysis). Thus, the present study aimed at reassessing the impact of experimenter’s presence reported by Belletier and Camos (2018) on a larger sample, with a within- subject manipulation of concurrent articulation, a variation in the secondary task, and the addition of another type of concurrent articulation. In the present study, participants alone or in the presence of the experimenter performed a Brown-Peterson task in which they maintained letters during a 12-second interval, during which they either stayed silent, uttered aloud, or whispered non-sense syllables. They had also to perform either no secondary task, a parity or a location judgement task. Results confirmed Belletier and Camos’ (2018) findings, showing that the experimenter presence hindered memory performance when participants performed a secondary task under any type of concurrent articulation. A silent context or the absence of secondary task preserved recall from the effect of experimenter’s presence.</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>https://folia.unifr.ch/global/documents/334846</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://folia.unifr.ch/documents/334846/files/camosetal2025.pdf</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.5334/joc.461</dc:relation>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/issn/2514-4820</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights>
  <dc:rights>CC BY</dc:rights>
  <dc:source>Journal of Cognition. - Ubiquity Press, Ltd.. - 2025, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 1-9</dc:source>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns1="xml" ns1:lang="en">Working Memory</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns2="xml" ns2:lang="en">Experimenter Presence</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns3="xml" ns3:lang="en">Attentional Maintenance</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns4="xml" ns4:lang="en">Concurrent Articulation</dc:subject>
  <dc:title xmlns:ns5="xml" ns5:lang="en">Does the Experimenter Presence Affect Verbal Working Memory?</dc:title>
  <dc:type>http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>
