CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and Memory

Working memory capacity and intra-individual variability of proactive control

Open access
Wiemers, Elizabeth A., Redick, Thomas S.·2018·Acta Psychologica
DOI 10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.11.002PMC PMC5771817
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Two datasets of 110 young adults were examined to investigate the relationship between individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) and dynamic cognitive control. The results delve into the specific differences between high- and low-WMC individuals' ability to enact and maintain cognitive control using the AX version of the continuous performance test (AX-CPT). Compared to high-WMC individuals, low-WMC individuals: (a) made more errors, specifically to AX targets; (b) exhibited a partial shift to proactive control with more time-on-task; (c) had more exaggerated slower AX target responses in the tail of the response time distribution; and (d) were equally likely to adjust control after conflict. These results fit with the dual mechanisms of cognitive control theory and goal-maintenance account, and further clarify how individual differences in WMC manifests as intra-individual variability in cognitive control.

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 · 10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.11.002

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • Modern performance-based executive function tests are based on cognitive models of executive function and are termed 'cognitively-informed'.

    “Cognitive and clinical scientists have developed modern performance tests of executive function that are based on models of executive function from the cognitive literature (‘cognitively-informed’).22,143”

    From Executive function deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Proactive and Reactive Control and AX-CPT: Previous Research sections (pages unavailable) describe a performance task used to assess control mechanisms defined by a cognitive theory. The paper thus provides an example of a theory-guided test, but it does not make the broader claim that modern executive-function tests as a class were developed this way or call them “cognitively-informed.” (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The pattern of results is consistent with recent calls to reconceptualize inhibition as an outcome rather than a process/mechanism that produces outcomes, in which the goal is to inhibit and we rely on other processes including working memory to do so successfully.

    “Finally, this pattern of results is consistent with recent calls to reconceptualize inhibition as an outcome rather than a process/mechanism that produces outcomes (117). In this view, inhibition is not something we use to suppress a response; instead, the goal is to inhibit and we rely on other processes to do so successfully (117), including engaging working memory (this study) to adopt more”

    From Working memory and inhibitory control deficits in children with ADHD: an experimental evaluation of competing model predictions (2024) · cites this paper as [64]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In the unity and diversity model, unity refers to correlations among the three components that are presumed to reflect a common underlying ability, while diversity acknowledges that the components are also unique and separable.

    “‘Unity’ in this model refers to correlations between the three components, which are presumed to reflect a common underlying ability, whereas ‘diversity’ acknowledges that the components are also unique and separable.22”

    From Executive function deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Discussion and Results passages address working memory capacity and proactive control, not the unity and diversity model. Searches for “unity,” “diversity,” and the claimed correlations among three components found no passage in our copy that explains those terms. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The unity and diversity model proposes three interrelated but uniquely specific and separable executive function components: working memory, inhibitory control, and set shifting.

    “the unity and diversity model18— proposes that there are three interrelated but uniquely specific and separable executive function components: working memory, inhibitory control, and set shifting.9”

    From Executive function deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Abstract and Discussion describe working memory capacity and proactive cognitive control, not the unity and diversity model or its proposed three components. Searches for the model and for inhibition, shifting, and updating found no passage in our copy addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Ball BH 2015 Cognitive control processes underlying continuous and transient monitoring processes in event-based prospective memory Unpublished doctoral dissertation Arizona State University Tempe, AZ

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wiemers, E. A., & Redick, T. S.
Affiliations
Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Wiemers, Elizabeth A.
ORCID
Venue
Acta Psychologica
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-01
Volume
182
Pages
21-31
ISSN
0001-6918 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.11.002
PMC
PMC5771817
OpenAlex
W2767618123
Cited by
56
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5
FWCI
2.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Acta Psychologica (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-12-1-1011)
  • National Institutes of Health (2R01AA013650-11A1)
  • National Science Foundation (1632403)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
working memory capacity, proactive control, cognitive control, individual differences, within-person variability, continuous performance test, AX-CPT, response time distribution, conflict adaptation, time on task
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cognition, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Young Adult

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