Cited by 1,414Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity.

Open access
Kane, Michael J., Bleckley, M. Kathryn, Conway, Andrew R. A., Engle, Randall W.·2001·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

In 2 experiments the authors examined whether individual differences in working-memory (WM) capacity are related to attentional control. Experiment 1 tested high- and low-WM-span (high-span and low-span) participants in a prosaccade task, in which a visual cue appeared in the same location as a subsequent to-be-identified target letter, and in an antisaccade task, in which a target appeared opposite the cued location. Span groups identified targets equally well in the prosaccade task, reflecting equivalence in automatic orienting. However, low-span participants were slower and less accurate than high-span participants in the antisaccade task, reflecting differences in attentional control. Experiment 2 measured eye movements across a long antisaccade session. Low-span participants made slower and more erroneous saccades than did high-span participants. In both experiments, low-span participants performed poorly when task switching from antisaccade to prosaccade blocks. The findings support a controlled-attention view of WM capacity.

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 · 10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.169

Cites

73 of 73 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?

  • The goal maintenance/biasing perspective is incorporated into the executive attention framework and the dual mechanisms of cognitive control framework.

    “The goal maintenance/biasing perspective is incorporated into several other CC frameworks, such as the executive attention framework [172] and the dual mechanisms of CC framework [121].”

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: 5

  1. [2]2. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV (pp. 421-452).
  2. [3]3. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. London/New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. [6]6. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). New York: Academic Press.
  4. [27]27. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102-134). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  5. [28]28. Engle, R. W., & Oransky, N. (1999). The evolution from short-term to working memory: Multi-store to dynamic models of temporary storage. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 515-555).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2001
Volume
130
Issue
2
Pages
169-183
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2033101906
Cited by
1,414
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 73 · 2017: 75 · 2016: 75 · 2015: 71 · 2014: 82 · 2013: 74 · 2012: 82
FWCI
31.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
working memory capacity, attentional control, individual differences, antisaccade task, prosaccade task, eye movements, task switching
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Mental Recall, Retention, Psychology, Saccades, Verbal Learning

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