Cited by 105Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesCognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The effect of an executive functioning training program on working memory capacity and intrusive thoughts

Open access
Bomyea, Jessica, Amir, Nader·2011·Cognitive Therapy and Research

Abstract

Recurrent intrusive thoughts are apparent across numerous clinical disorders, including depression (i.e., rumination) and anxiety disorders (e.g., worry, obsessions; Brewin et al. 2010). Theoretical accounts of intrusive thoughts suggest that individual differences in executive functioning, specifically poor inhibitory control, may account for the persistence of these thoughts in some individuals (e.g., Anderson and Levy 2009). The present study examined the causal effect of inhibitory control on intrusive thoughts by experimentally manipulating inhibition requirements in a working memory capacity (WMC) task and evaluating the effect of this training on intrusive thoughts during a thought suppression task. Unselected undergraduate participants were randomly assigned to repeatedly practice a task requiring either high inhibitory control (training condition) or low inhibitory control (control condition). Results indicated that individuals in the training condition demonstrated significantly greater WMC performance improvements from pre to post assessment relative to the control group. Moreover, individuals in the training group experienced fewer intrusions during a thought suppression task. These results provide support for theoretical accounts positing a relationship between inhibitory control and intrusive thoughts. Moreover, improving inhibitory control through computerized training programs may have clinical utility in disorders characterized by recurrent intrusive thoughts (e.g., depression, PTSD).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10608-011-9369-8

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bomyea and Amir (2011) found, in an analog sample, that reduced working memory capacity, a core marker of cognitive control, predicted the severity of intrusive memories even after accounting for anxiety and depression.

    “Bomyea and Amir (2011) found, in an analog sample, that reduced working memory capacity, a core marker of cognitive control, predicted the severity of intrusive memories even after accounting for anxiety and depression.”

    From The body does not keep the score: trauma, predictive coding, and the restoration of metastability (2026) · cites this paper as Bomyea and Amir (2011)

    The study’s summary reports that unselected undergraduates who improved more on working-memory performance through training experienced fewer intrusions during a thought-suppression task. The Methods (Assessments and Measures; page unavailable) say anxiety and depression were measured, but the passages do not establish that reduced baseline working-memory capacity predicted the severity of intrusive memories after accounting for both. The Discussion (page unavailable) distinguishes improvements in capacity from absolute levels of capacity. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bomyea, J., & Amir, N.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • San Diego State University (US)
Corresponding author
Amir, Nader
Venue
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Published
2011-05-13
Volume
35
Issue
6
Pages
529-535
ISSN
  • 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2819
OpenAlex
W1987796089
Cited by
101
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
6.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Therapy and Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (F31MH088170, R01MH087623, R34MH077129, R34MH073004)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
executive function training, inhibitory control, intrusive thoughts, working memory capacity, thought suppression, computer-based training, rumination, depression, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review