Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 28, 2026

Memorization-Based Training and Testing Paradigm for Robust Vocal Identity Recognition in Expressive Speech Using Event-Related Potentials Analysis
Published on: August 9, 2024
Written vs. spoken eyewitness accounts: does modality of testing matter?
Melanie Sauerland1, Siegfried L Sporer
1Section of Forensic Psychology, Department of Clinical Psychological Science, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. melanie.sauerland@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Abstract:
The aim of the current study was to test whether the modality of testing (written vs. spoken) matters when obtaining eyewitness statements. Writing puts higher demands on working memory than speaking because writing is slower, less practiced, and associated with the activation of graphemic representations for spelling words (Kellogg, 2007). Therefore, we hypothesized that witnesses' spoken reports should elicit more details than written ones. Participants (N = 192) watched a staged crime video and then gave a spoken or written description of the course of action and the perpetrator. As expected, spoken crime and perpetrator descriptions contained more details than written ones, although there was no difference in accuracy. However, the most critical (central) crime and perpetrator information was both more extensive and more accurate when witnesses gave spoken descriptions. In addition to cognitive factors, social factors are considered which may drive the effect.
More Related Videos
09:09Foreign Accent and Forensic Speaker Identification in Voice Lineups: The Influence of Acoustic Features Based on Prosody
Published on: September 27, 2024
09:27Using Eye Movements Recorded in the Visual World Paradigm to Explore the Online Processing of Spoken Language
Published on: October 13, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Eyewitness Memory
One such error is memory distortion, which occurs because human memory does not function like a...
Statistical Significance
Naturalistic Observations