The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 125 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 39 are not checked yet; none of the 47 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference.
Open accessAbstract
Individual differences in working-memory (WM) capacity predicted performance on the Stroop task in 5 experiments, indicating the importance of executive control and goal maintenance to selective attention. When the Stroop task encouraged goal neglect by including large numbers of congruent trials (RED presented in red), low WM individuals committed more errors than did high WM individuals on the rare incongruent trials (BLUE in red) that required maintaining access to the "ignore-the-word" goal for accurate responding. In contrast, in tasks with no or few congruent trials, or in high-congruency tasks that followed low-congruency tasks, WM predicted response-time interference. WM was related to latency, not accuracy, in contexts that reinforced the task goal and so minimized the difficulty of actively maintaining it. The data and a literature review suggest that Stroop interference is jointly determined by 2 mechanisms, goal maintenance and competition resolution, and that the dominance of each depends on WM capacity, as well as the task set induced by current and previous contexts.
Checked 2026-10-06 · 39 references not checked yet
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
115 Own result · 64 Own interpretation · 26 Not checked yet · 7 No basis given · 2 Own method · 1 Sources not found
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, in tasks with no or few congruent trials, or in high-congruency tasks that followed low-congruency tasks, WM predicted response-time interference.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Individual differences in working-memory (WM) capacity predicted performance on the Stroop task in 5 experiments”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“WM was related to latency, not accuracy, in contexts that reinforced the task goal and so minimized the difficulty of actively maintaining it.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the Stroop task encouraged goal neglect by including large numbers of congruent trials (RED presented in red), low WM individuals committed more errors than did high WM individuals on the rare incongruent trials (BLUE in red) that required maintaining access to the -ignore-the-word‖ goal for accurate responding.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants complied with the instruction to ignore the word on every trial and did not look away or squint during the Stroop task.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“low spans did not show larger interference effects than did high spans, either overall, F(1, 83) = 2.22, MSE = 2,669.56,p = .14”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although high spans had shorter naming latencies than did low spans overall, F(1, 86) = 11.40,MSE = 45,504.65”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Experiments 1 and 2, 11% and 13% of high spans, respectively, made ≥ 20% errors.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But contrary to prototypical Stroop findings, these span differences arose in accuracy, and not in response time.3”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data indicate that different manifestations of Stroop interference are dissociable by their relation to WM capacity.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(again, the facilitation effect was significant for each span group, with Fs > 40).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The quote only partly states this claim. 5
- It may state two separate claims as one. 71
- Probably not a substantial claim. 13
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as well as a significant difference in interference between high and low spans, F(1, 42) = 6.55,MSE = 0.005”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the 0% congruent condition, the span groups showed equivalent error rates overall (F < 1), and despite a significant Stroop effect, F(1, 86) = 12.95, MSE = 0.001, high and low spans showed equivalent interference, F(1, 86) = 1.05,MSE = 0.00 1, p = .31.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The three-way interaction of span, congruency proportion, and trial type indicated that the span groups showed equivalent interference across congruency conditions (F < 1).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As in Experiment 1, the 75% congruent condition was quite sensitive to span differences in response-time facilitation, but not in interference.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To preview, the data from the 75% task in Experiment 2 closely replicated those from Experiment 1, with span differences in interference arising in error rates, and not in response times, despite the presentation of accuracy feedback throughout.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although low spans demonstrated numerically larger response-time interference effects than did high spans in both congruency conditions, suggestive of span differences in resolving response competition, these span differences were not statistically significant.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, that tendency did not approach significance in Experiment 1 (p = .18)and fell short of conventional significance levels in Experiment 2 (p = .09).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In five experiments we demonstrate that WM span does, in fact, predict Stroop interference and that these span differences vary with list-wide proportions of congruent trials, consistent with a dual-mechanism view of the Stroop effect.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was, however, a significant Stroop effect overall, F(1, 86) = 444.41,MSE = 4,023.06,which was larger for the 75% congruent condition than for the 0% condition, F(1, 86) = 102.03,MSE = 1,585.50.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The three-way interaction of span, congruency proportion, and trial type approached conventional significance, F(1, 86) = 2.88, MSE = 0.002, p = .09.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a significant Stroop effect emerged, with more errors committed on incongruent than on neutral trials, F(1, 83) = 74.20,MSE = 0.003.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“that span interacted with congruency proportion, F(1, 86) = 7.87, MSE = 0.002, and that span interacted with trial type, indicating span differences in error interference, F(1, 86) = 4.87, MSE = 0.003.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Experiment 1, 40% of low spans made ≥ 20% errors, whereas in Experiment 2, only 21% of low spans committed this many errors.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A full 40% of low-span participants committed more than 20% errors on incongruent trials, whereas only 11% of high spans did”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Error rates in these two conditions were near floor, and a 2 (span) X 2 (proportion congruent) X 2 (trial type) ANOVA on neutral and congruent trials indicated no significant facilitation effect and no span difference in facilitation (both Fs < 1).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“span did not interact significantly with either congruency (F < 1) or trial type, F(1, 86) = 2.88, MSE = 3,713.32,p = .09,and the three-way interaction of span, congruency, and trial type was also nonsignificant, F(1, 86) < 1, all indicating comparable response-time interference effects for highand low-span participants across congruency conditions.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Responses on incongruent trials were slower than on neutral trials, indicating a significant Stroop interference effect, F(1, 83) = 240.64,MSE = 2,669.56”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In both Experiments 1 and 2, there was a nonsignificant tendency for low spans to show greater response-time interference than did high spans in the 0% congruent condition.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the 75% congruent condition, error proportions on congruent and incongruent trials were near floor and did not significantly differ from each other, F(1, 86) = 1.81,MSE = 0.002; span groups did not differ in error facilitation (or lack thereof) either (F < 1).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By inspection of the response-time means in Table 1, congruent trials yielded faster responses than did neutral trials, reflecting response-time -facilitation.‖”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, the 75% congruent condition elicited a higher overall error rate for low spans than for high spans, F(1, 86) = 8.34, MSE 0.005, a significant interference effect overall, F(1, 86) 109.12,MSE = 0.004, and most importantly, a larger interference effect for low spans than for high spans, F(1, 86) = 5.09, MSE = 0.004”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Anecdotally, we can report that virtually every error reflected reading the word, either in part (as in -gre-blue‖ for the intended response -blue‖) or outright.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“high-and low-span participants had equivalent error latencies, and span group did not interact with error type (both Fs < 1).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Low spans showed greater error interference than did high spans in the 75% congruent conditions when they were presented as a first task (Experiments 1 and 2), but low spans showed exaggerated response-time interference in the 75% condition presented after a 0% condition here.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although the Stroop effect was significant in the 20% congruent condition, F(1, 270) = 57.52,MSE = 0.002, it did not differ in magnitude between high-and low-span participants, F(1, 270) = 1.63,MSE = 0.002, p = .20.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because a 2 (span group) X 2 (experiment) X 2 (congruency proportion) X 2 (trial type) mixed-model ANOVA indicated that the only effect of experiment was a marginally significant interaction with congruency proportion, F(1, 134) = 3.25, MSE = 3,473.08,p = .07(with most other Fs < 1), we did not analyze this variable further.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, low spans appeared to show greater interference than high spans in all conditions, that is, in both congruency proportions and in both proportion orders.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“WM span predicted response-time facilitation only in Experiments 1 and 2, and not in Experiments 3A and 3B (see Figure 4).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, low spans' response-time interference effects in the 0% congruent task were over 50% larger than high spans' in Experiment 1, and over 25% larger in Experiment 2, despite the lack of statistically significant differences between groups.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that 75% congruent tasks that occur as a first task produce span differences in error interference, whereas Experiments 3A and 3B both showed that these same tasks occurring subsequent to 0% congruent tasks produce span differences in response-time interference.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“clean-error latencies were not different from congruent latencies, F(1, 67) = 2.3 1, MSE = 6,688.63,p = .13,but much shorter than those on accurate incongruent trials, F(1, 67) = 131.04,MSE = 9,318.31.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the nonsignificant interaction of span, trial type, and congruency (F < 1) demonstrated that span differences in interference were significant and comparable in both congruency conditions.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unlike the analysis of the 0% congruent data reported above, here the increase in power did not reveal significant span differences.Low spans' 75% task interference effects in latency were not larger than high spans', F(1, 128) = 1.78,MSE = 3,632.56,p = .18,and this lack of a span difference in interference did not interact with experiment (F < 1).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As in Experiments 1 and 2, a 2 (span) X 2 (trial type) mixed-model ANOVA indicated that errors in the 75% congruent condition were equivalent, and near floor, on congruent and neutral trials, and the span groups were equivalent in facilitation (or lack thereof; with all Fs < 1).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“low spans produced greater interference than did high spans in both latencies and error rates, for both the 20%-first and 80%-first groups.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“congruent trials yielded faster responses than did neutral trials overall, F(1, 136) = 167.55,MSE = 717.95,but the lack of a Span X Trial Type interaction indicated that WM span did not affect response-time facilitation (F < 1).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two experiments differed only in their trial pacing (participant-vs.computer-paced in Experiments 3A and 3B, respectively), and because this variable did not appreciably affect the results, their data were combined for all analyses.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, span differences in latency interference were seen here in both 20% and 80% congruent conditions, for both 20%-first and 80%-first participants.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From inspection of the means in Table 3, high and low spans demonstrated equivalent facilitation effects in the 75% congruent condition, in contrast to the findings from Experiments 1 and 2, and despite the greater power here.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The key finding from this analysis was that, with the improvement in power, low spans' interference effects in the 0% condition were significantly larger than high spans' effects, F(1, 127) = 4.90, MSE = 1,881.43,and this span difference in interference did not interact with experiment (F < 1).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“found significant effects only for trial type, F(1, 134) = 152.13,MSE = 0.003, indicating a Stroop interference effect, and for the interaction of congruency proportion and trial type, F(1, 134) = 121.25,MSE = 0.001, indicating greater interference for the 75% congruent condition than for the 0% condition (all other Fs < 1.05).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“only 22 high spans met our inclusion criterion of ~~!! 6 incongruent errors in the 80% congruent condition, whereas 47 low spans did”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, here the response-time interference differences between high and low spans in the 0% congruent tasks were significant, where they had not been in Experiments 1 and 2.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“indicated that span differences in interference did not differ as a function of congruency proportion, or the order in which congruency proportions were encountered.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Experiments 1, 2, and 4, where a highcongruency Stroop task was presented alone or as the first task, low spans demonstrated larger error interference effects than did high spans, with low spans more often naming the word when the color and word were in conflict.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“tasks that presented 0% or 20% congruent trials in these experiments elicited consistently modest span differences in response-time interference.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Experiment 3A and 3B presented a 75% congruent task following a 0% task, and here low spans demonstrated significantly larger response-time interference than did high spans in both tasks.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Conway et al. (2001) found that only 20% of high spans detected their name when it was presented, but a full 65% of low spans did (no participants detected the control name).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Conway, Cowan, and Bunting (2001)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“WM capacity is not limited to maintaining representations of external stimuli, but it also keeps action plans, goal representations, and task-relevant information in an easily accessible state, allowing them to appropriately bias responding”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites E. K. Miller, 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“According to Cohen's connectionist model, group differences in Stroop interference arise from the ability, or inability, to keep the task goal sufficiently active (i.e., -ignore the word and respond to color‖).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen, Dunbar, & McClelland, 1990
- Not checked yetcites Cohen & Servan-Schreiber, 1992
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and that the dominance of each depends on WM capacity, as well as the task set induced by current and previous contexts.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“we have argued that WM = STM + controlled attention, and that the general, controlled-attention component of the WM system primarily drives the predictive utility of WM span tasks”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Engle, 2001
- Not checked yetcites Engle, 2002
- Not checked yetcites Engle, Kane et al., 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, WM capacity is related to the successful operation of both mechanisms.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interference may also, or instead, reflect the time-consuming process of resolving response competition in service of a successfully activated goal to do so, which should lead to a relatively consistent but modest slowing on incongruent trials relative to baseline trials.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants complied with the instruction to ignore the word on every trial and did not look away or squint during the Stroop task.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the correlations among OSPAN and other WM measures, such as Reading Span (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980), approach the reliability estimates of OSPAN, itself, ranging between r = .40and r = .80”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Conway et al., 2002
- Not checked yetcites Engle, Tuholski et al., 1999 source
- Not checked yetcites Lehto, 1996
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Low-span participants demonstrated significantly larger response-time facilitation effects, as well as larger error interference effects, and we would interpret both these effects as arising from periodic, overt word reading.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Goal neglect in the Stroop task leads to overt word reading.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Healthy older adults show equivalent interference to young adults when analyses isolate the response-competition component of the latency distribution (Spieler et al., 1996), and schizophrenics show equivalent interference to controls when it is assessed in contexts that reinforce task goals, making goal neglect unlikely (Perlstein, Carter, Barch, & Baird, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Spieler et al., 1996
- Not checked yetcites Perlstein, Carter, Barch, & Baird, 1998
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reduction in the span difference in errors in Experiment 2 versus Experiment 1 suggests that the presentation of accuracy feedback helped low spans reduce their goal neglect somewhat, but obviously it did not eliminate it entirely.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Goal neglect in the Stroop task leads to overt word reading.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is because, on congruent trials, the word that is presented leads to the same response as the color, and so the stimulus does not reinforce the -ignore-the-word‖ task demands.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This pattern of results indicates that normal aging and some disease states produce particular difficulties with active goal maintenance in the Stroop task, and not with resolving response com-petition proper.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Prior research has established the OSPAN task to be a reliable and valid marker of WM capacity.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Conway et al., 2002
- Not checked yetcites Engle, Cantor, & Carullo, 1992
- Not checked yetcites Engle, Tuholski et al., 1999 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted that high spans' error rates in the 75% congruent condition remained remarkably constant between Experiments 1 and 2, suggesting that they were better able than low spans to monitor their performance without the presentation of overt feedback.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, responses on the rare incongruent trials in such a context will be especially sensitive to successful goal maintenance; if the goal is momentarily lost, errors will be likely.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants complied with the instruction to ignore the word on every trial and did not look away or squint during the Stroop task.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, interference involves the time-consuming action of a relatively stable competition-resolution mechanism, the failure of a more transient goal-maintenance mechanism, or both, depending on the task context.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants complied with the instruction to ignore the word on every trial and did not look away or squint during the Stroop task.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both findings replicated Experiment 1.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Practice on a 0% condition did not eliminate span differences in interference on a subsequent 75% condition, but it did shift the effect from errors to response times.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, because the combined Experiments 3A and 3B had included more participants than did either Experiment 1 or 2, the significant span differences seen here may reflect improved power rather than the effects of practice.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The response-time data from Experiment 4 thus provide no real inconsistency with Experiments 1 and 2.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, it appears that whether the 0% congruent task was completed as a first task or as a second task, low spans showed larger response-time interference than did high spans across experiments; however, the effect is not especially robust, and so large samples are required to detect”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We believe that this difference between experiments is meaningful, because there was no hint of a span difference in error interference in either Experiments 3A or 3B, and the effect here in Experiment 4 was substantial.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, when the 75% congruent task was encountered first, WM span predicted error interference only, and when the 75% task was encountered after the 0% congruent task, WM span predicted latency interference only.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although 0% congruent tasks produced small and inconsistent span effects in response-time interference within individual experiments, combined-experiment analyses reported above indicated that low spans showed greater response-time interference in these tasks, regardless of task order.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“prior research on memory interference suggests that WM capacity is related to the effective resolution of response competition in service of the task goal (e.g., Conway & Engle, 1994).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Conway & Engle, 1994
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As we expected, this may have resulted from the more limited practice with incongruent trials in Experiments 3A and 3B compared with Experiments 1 and 2.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Stroop interference is jointly determined by two mechanisms, both sensitive to individual differences in WM capacity.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Goal maintenance is less critical in 0% and 20% congruent contexts than in 75% and 80% congruent contexts, because repeated incongruent trials reinforce the ignore-the-word goal enough to aid goal-directed responding.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our error interference findings suggest that WM capabilities constrain attentional inhibition, or at least the consistency of its application”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“recent demonstrations that WM span correlates with negative priming (Conway, Tuholski, Shisler, & Engle, 1999), with counting from 1 to 12 visual objects (Tuholski, Engle, & Baylis, 2001), and with flexibly allocating the extent of visual attention (Bleckley, 2001)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Conway, Tuholski, Shisler, & Engle, 1999
- Not checked yetcites Tuholski, Engle, & Baylis, 2001
- Not checked yetcites Bleckley, 2001
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“low spans are deficient in their ability to prevent attentional -capture‖ and respond in a goal-directed manner”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Conway & Kane, 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did not examine response-time distributions in the present study for two reasons: (a) We were able to induce overt word-reading differences across span groups and congruency contexts, and so examination of any potentially more subtle goal-neglect effects in skew would be redundant; (b) Larger numbers of trials per participant are needed to appropriately analyze response-time distributions than”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“other research suggests that WM capacity may be unrelated to trial-to-trial costs that are measured in currently popular task-switching paradigms”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Miyake et al., 2000
- Not checked yetcites Oberauer, Süß, Wilhelm, & Wittmann, in press
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although our data cannot rule out a possible role of convergent color and word responses in producing Stroop facilitation”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the Cohen model is not a dual-mechanism model, because goal maintenance determines the degree of response competition that is present to be resolved”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this may be taken to support our idea that error-and latency-interference effects are dissociable”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants complied with the instruction to ignore the word on every trial and did not look away or squint during the Stroop task.
“The experimenter therefore explicitly instructed all participants to ignore the word on every trial, even if the word and color matched on some (or many) trials.”
“the experimenter instructed all participants that they would be observed to determine that they never looked away from the word or squinted their eyes during the task.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In healthy adult participants, Stroop interference is more typically seen in response latencies than in errors.
“In healthy, adult participants, Stroop interference is more typically seen in latencies than in errors, and so here we tried to force any WM-related interference differences out of errors and into response times by emphasizing accuracy.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Some degree of goal maintenance is necessary even in the 0% congruent Stroop task.
“Presumably some degree of goal maintenance is necessary in even the 0% congruent Stroop task”
The paper relies on this without support.
Working-memory capacity as measured by the OSPAN task reflects the working-memory capacity relevant to attentional control.
“participants differing in WM capacity, as measured by the OSPAN task”
The paper relies on this without support.
Goal neglect in the Stroop task leads to overt word reading.
“Increasing the list-wide proportion of congruent trials should have made goal neglect (and so, overt word reading) more likely in low spans.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Goal maintenance is less critical in 0% and 20% congruent contexts than in 75% and 80% congruent contexts, because repeated incongruent trials reinforce the ignore-the-word goal enough to aid goal-directed responding.
“Here, goal maintenance was presumed to be less critical than in the 75% and 80% congruent contexts, because the repeated presentation of incongruent trials should have reinforced the ignore-the-word goal of the task often enough to aid goal-directed responding.”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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 [61]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In this view, environmental demands that challenge working memory (in this case by adding a concurrent memory load) interact with a preexisting neurobiological vulnerability (e.g., underdeveloped cortical structures that support working memory; 44) to produce secondary impairments including goal maintenance failures (61), reduced information processing efficiency (85), and reduced attentional”
From Working memory and inhibitory control deficits in children with ADHD: an experimental evaluation of competing model predictions (2024) · cites this paper as [61]
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, poorer WM ability has been correlated with poorer performance on the Stroop color-word task (9, 10), a classic measure of attentional control (11).”
From Attentional Control Activation Relates to Working Memory in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (2010) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“Others have argued that the demands of task set maintenance vary across different Stroop task conditions (9).”
From Attentional Control Activation Relates to Working Memory in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (2010) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“Consistent with such an idea, Kane & Engle (2003) demonstrated that low WM ability results in greater interference on Stroop accuracy when blocks are mostly congruent compared to when blocks are mostly incongruent.”
From Attentional Control Activation Relates to Working Memory in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (2010) · cites this paper as Kane & Engle (2003)
In the citing paper
“In contrast, on congruent and neutral trials, the word name does not conflict with the ink color, resulting in no reminder of the need to identify the ink color (i.e., “goal neglect”; 9).”
From Attentional Control Activation Relates to Working Memory in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (2010) · cites this paper as [9]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Errors
“error proportions on congruent and incongruent trials were near floor and did not significantly differ from each other, F(1, 86) = 1.81,MSE = 0.002”
§ Errors
“a significant interference effect overall, F(1, 86) 109.12,MSE = 0.004”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Errors
“a 2 (span) X 2 (proportion congruent) X 2 (trial type) ANOVA on neutral and congruent trials indicated no significant facilitation effect”
§ Design
“participants in the 0% congruent condition did not see congruent trials”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ EXPERIMENTS 3A AND 3B
“In Experiment 1, all three proportion-congruent conditions presented the same number of total trials”
§ EXPERIMENT 1
“either 0% or 75%.”
Citations
Cites
Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions
Stroop, J. R. (1935) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0054651 · Cited by 18,622
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.343 · Cited by 17,559
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60452-1 · Cited by 9,860
The attention system of the human brain
Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.13.030190.000325 · Cited by 8,070 · cited 1×
“Given the timing of this wave, and the putative role of anterior cingulate in response selection and competition (e.g., Posner & Peterson, 1990; Posner & Raichle, 1994), we interpret the N450 as involved in the competition-resolution mechanism of Stroop interference.”
MethodIndividual differences in working memory and reading
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90312-6 · Cited by 6,336
The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory
(2010) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-62209-1 · Cited by 6,035
Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163 · Cited by 5,500
Reason, J. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139062367 · Cited by 5,108
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 10.1037/0021-843x.108.1.120 · DOI
- Posner, 1994, Images of mind.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196772 · Cited by 2,882
“... resisting the attention capture of an exogenous cue in the antisaccade task (Kane et al., 2001; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004), (2) have difficulty constraining their attention to discontiguous regions of space (Bleckley, Durso, Crutchfield, Engle, & Khanna, 2004), (3) are slower to constrain their focus of att…”
BackgroundSelf-citationExecutive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework.
Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., & Smith, I. M. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31 · Cited by 2,695
An automated version of the operation span task
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03192720 · Cited by 1,861
“Indeed, beginning with the work of Daneman and Carpenter (1980), WM span tasks have been shown to predict everything from reading comprehension (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980) to performance on the Stroop task ( Kane & Engle, 2003 ).”
BackgroundSelf-citationFriedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2017) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.023 · Cited by 1,834
Load Theory of Selective Attention and Cognitive Control
Lavie, N., Hirst, A., de Fockert, J. W., & Viding, E. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.339 · Cited by 1,812
“Kane and Engle (2003) showed that lowspan subjects make more errors of responding to a distracting (low probability; see Logan, 1980) incongruent word in the Stroop task than do high-span subjects, again suggesting that high-span subjects may be better able to ignore irrelevant yet salient…”
BackgroundNeural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory capacity
Vogel, E. K., & Machizawa, M. G. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02447 · Cited by 1,883
Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0028228 · Cited by 1,782
“Kane and Engle (2003) showed that people with high working memory capacity found it easier to inhibit prepotent responses to the color words, but only in the more difficult condition when such incongruent trials were relatively infrequent (and hence, when the task goal may have slipped from the…”
BackgroundMethodKane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189 · Cited by 1,679
“Moreover, such active maintenance is particularly important in the presence of interference, which disrupts rapid retrieval of information from LTM, and in the blocking of distraction and competing response tendencies (Engle & Kane, 2004; Kane & Engle, 2002, 2003 ).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationThe stroop color and word test
Scarpina, F., & Tagini, S. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00557 · Cited by 1,661
“Moreover, it must be noted that error rate (and not the speed) is an index of inhibitory control (McDowd et al., 1995) or an index of ability to maintain the tasks goal temporarily in a highly retrievable state (Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundKane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196323 · Cited by 2,229
Self-citationAn integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance
Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.115.2.336 · Cited by 1,576
“These researchers have developed dual-processing measures of working memory that predict performance on a wide variety of cognitive tasks, ranging from Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999) to Stroop color naming (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundInfluentialIndividual differences in executive functions are almost entirely genetic in origin.
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., Corley, R. P., & Hewitt, J. K. (2008) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.201 · Cited by 1,547
Hertzog, C., Kramer, A. F., Wilson, R. S., & Lindenberger, U. (2008) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01034.x · Cited by 1,495
Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.1.104 · Cited by 1,307
“Specifically, the current framework suggests that individual differences in WMC are related to individual differences in performance in basic attention tasks like antisaccade and Stroop because low WMC individuals are poorer at actively maintaining task goals in the face of internal and external distraction (Engle & K…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationNeural measures reveal individual differences in controlling access to working memory
Vogel, E. K., McCollough, A. W., & Machizawa, M. G. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04171 · Cited by 1,367
Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.005 · Cited by 1,223
“Similar conclusions have been drawn from research on ‘low-level’ attention tasks that require little by the way of memory, per se , such as dichotic listening [21], Stroop color-naming [22], visual orienting [23], and negative priming [24].”
ResultSelf-citationDo “brain-training” programs work?
Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100616661983 · Cited by 1,183
Is working memory training effective?
Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0027473 · Cited by 1,101
Self-citationExecutive Attention, Working Memory Capacity, and a Two-Factor Theory of Cognitive Control
Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2003) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(03)44005-x · Cited by 1,104
“Important for present purposes is that we typically fail to find response time (R T) differences between span groups in the baseline condi tions that assess relatively automatic processes (Kane, Bleckley, Conway & Engle, 2001 ; Kane & Engle, 2003b).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationValue-driven attentional capture
Anderson, B. A., Laurent, P. A., & Yantis, S. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1104047108 · Cited by 1,098
What Is Ego Depletion? Toward a Mechanistic Revision of the Resource Model of Self-Control
Inzlicht, M., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2012) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612454134 · Cited by 1,083
“The process model acknowledges the importance of the monitoring process, suggesting that initial acts of control lead to failures of attention, more specifically a neglect of the self-control goal at hand (Kane & Engle, 2003), thereby contributing to subsequent selfcontrol failures.”
BackgroundModelling neural correlates of working memory: A coordinate-based meta-analysis
Rottschy, C., Langner, R., Dogan, I., Reetz, K., Laird, A. R., Schulz, J. B., Fox, P. T., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.050 · Cited by 951
“In particular, neurons in this " executive committee " network may be tuned to represent relevant information across a diversity of tasks, thereby producing the well-known capacity limits in attention and WM alike (Kane and Engle, 2002, 2003).”
Kane, M. J., Brown, L. H., McVay, J. C., Silvia, P. J., Myin-Germeys, I., & Kwapil, T. R. (2007) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01948.x · Cited by 979
“In Stroop tasks, for example, if few trials reinforce the goal to ignore the color words and name their hues (because most words and hues match), low-WMC subjects frequently respond according to habit by reading the words (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundSelf-citationPrefrontal cortex and basal ganglia control access to working memory
McNab, F., & Klingberg, T. (2008) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn2024 · Cited by 989
Insights into the neural basis of response inhibition from cognitive and clinical neuroscience
Chambers, C. D., Garavan, H., & Bellgrove, M. A. (2009) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.08.016 · Cited by 938
“Indeed, the ability to maintain items actively in working memory while resisting interference is considered to be the essential determinant of working memory capacity (Engle et al., 1999; Kane et al., 2001; Kane and Engle, 2003 ).”
Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and Dual-Process Theories of the Mind.
Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.553 · Cited by 913
“This is consistent with the findings that those higher in WMC showed enhanced ability to perform on Stroop (Kane & Engle, 2003) or anti-saccade tasks (Kane et al., 2001), in which the experimental situation provides a symbolic rule to guide behavior.”
BackgroundResultSelf-citationImplicit measures: A normative analysis and review.
Houwer, J. D., Teige‐Mocigemba, S., Spruyt, A., & Moors, A. (2009) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0014211 · Cited by 870
“Because the impact of response conflicts on performance depends on the cognitive abilities of the participants to deal with the conflicts (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003), one can predict on the basis of the response activation account that the cognitive abilities of participants will determine the…”
BackgroundVohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.632 · Cited by 859
“The manipulation for Study 7 was the Stroop task, a task that has been known for decades to challenge people’s executivefunctioning capacities ( Kane & Engle, 2003 ).”
MethodOn the capacity of attention: Its estimation and its role in working memory and cognitive aptitudes
Cowan, N., Elliott, E. M., Scott Saults, J., Morey, C. C., Mattox, S., Hismjatullina, A., & Conway, A. R. A. (2005) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.12.001 · Cited by 1,144
“Indeed, the dependent measure of the ability to maintain a goal differs widely from one test situation to the next (cf. Conway et al., 2001; Kane et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundWorking Memory Underpins Cognitive Development, Learning, and Education
Cowan, N. (2013) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9246-y · Cited by 1,048
“A good experimental example of how staying on task is tied to working memory is one carried out by Kane and Engle (2003) using a well-known task designed long ago by John Ridley Stroop.”
McCabe, D. P., Roediger, H. L., III, McDaniel, M. A., Balota, D. A., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2010) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/a0017619 · Cited by 952
“It is important to note that in many situations in which cognition and behavior can be controlled under conditions that do not include distraction or interference, there are no differences in performance as a function of WMC (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundInterference resolution: Insights from a meta-analysis of neuroimaging tasks
NEE, D. E., WAGER, T. D., & JONIDES, J. (2007) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/cabn.7.1.1 · Cited by 798
“This corroborates findings linking working memory with susceptibility to interference (de Fockert, Rees, Frith, & Lavie, 2001; Engle, Kane, & Tuholski, 1999; Hester, Murphy, & Garavan, 2004; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003; Kim, Kim, & Chun, 2005).”
Anxiety and working memory capacity: A meta-analysis and narrative review.
Moran, T. P. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000051 · Cited by 776
McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0014104 · Cited by 849
“Thus, there is more to executive-task performance than just goal neglect and mind wandering, and habit-based errors need not reflect only lapses of sustained attention (Kane & Engle, 2003; Logan & Cowan, 1984).”
Self-citationChapter 2 Design for a Working Memory
Oberauer, K. (2009) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(09)51002-x · Cited by 636
“For instance, in conditions with a low proportion of incongruent trials, people with low measuredWM capacity suffered larger Stroop interference effects than those with high WM capacity (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundWorking memory and attention - a conceptual analysis and review
Oberauer, K. (2019) · Journal of Cognition · doi:10.5334/joc.58 · Cited by 634
“The latter form of attention includes selection of our current goal or task set and shielding it from distraction (Kane & Engle, 2003; Monsell, 2003), selection of one of several possible actions (Pashler, 1994), and monitoring of our actions and their outcomes (Yeung, Botvinick, & Cohen, 2004).”
McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0018298 · Cited by 707
“Kane and Engle (2003) distinguished individual differences in goal maintenance (a form of proactive control) from competition resolution (a form of reactive control) in a Stroop task.”
BackgroundSelf-citationOn the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672 · Cited by 840
Working memory capacity and the self-regulation of emotional expression and experience.
Schmeichel, B. J., Volokhov, R. N., & Demaree, H. A. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0013345 · Cited by 564
Beaty, R. E., & Silvia, P. J. (2012) · Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts · doi:10.1037/a0029171 · Cited by 551
“People with better cognitive control, such as people with high working memory spans, are less likely to have a task's goal (such as “to be creative” and “generate only creative uses”) slip from mind during the task ( Kane & Engle, 2003; Marcovitch, Boseovski, Knapp, & Kane, 2010).”
BackgroundMcVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0025250 · Cited by 562
“Research has indicated that successful performance on many attention-demanding tasks relies on both components of executive attention (Kane et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003; Unsworth et al., 2004; for exceptions, see Kane, Poole, Tuholski, & Engle, 2006).”
InfluentialSelf-citationInhibitory Mechanisms and the Control of Attention
Hasher, L., Lustig, C., & Zacks, R. T. (2008) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195168648.003.0009 · Cited by 558
Stanovich, K. E. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0003 · Cited by 555
“, 2003) and working memory (Conway et al., 2003; Engle, 2002; Geary, 2005; Kane et al., 2001; Kane and Engle, 2003; Kane et al., 2005).”
BackgroundLuciana, M. M., Bjork, J. M., Nagel, B. J., Barch, D. M., González, R., Nixon, S. J., & Banich, M. T. (2018) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2018.02.006 · Cited by 554
“Hence, they provide a stimulus-driven cue of the need for increased executive control (see Kane and Engle, 2003 for discussion).”
Many Labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication
Ebersole, C. R., Atherton, O. E., Belanger, A. L., Skulborstad, H. M., Allen, J. M., Banks, J. B., Baranski, E., Bernstein, M. J., Bonfiglio, D. B. V., Boucher, L., et al. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012 · Cited by 468
Reduced specificity of autobiographical memory and depression: The role of executive control.
Dalgleish, T., Williams, J. M. G., Golden, A.-M. J., Perkins, N., Barrett, L. F., Barnard, P. J., Yeung, C. A., Murphy, V., Elward, R. L., Tchanturia, K., et al. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.23 · Cited by 475
Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics
Gray, J. R., & Thompson, P. M. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1405 · Cited by 479
Stereotype threat and executive resource depletion: Examining the influence of emotion regulation.
Johns, M., Inzlicht, M., & Schmader, T. (2008) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0013834 · Cited by 533
“This small correlation could be the result of the Stroop task capturing only a subset of the processes associated with executive functioning (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
MethodWhat is working memory capacity, and how can we measure it?
Wilhelm, O., Hildebrandt, A., & Oberauer, K. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00433 · Cited by 468
“…results with other executivecontrol paradigms were found in further studies comparing participant groups with high versus low complex-span scores— for example using the Stroop task (Kane and Engle, 2003), a Dichotic-Listening task (Conway et al., 2001), and a go/no-go task (Redick et al., 2011).”
ResultMeasuring Working Memory Capacity With Automated Complex Span Tasks
Redick, T. S., Broadway, J. M., Meier, M. E., Kuriakose, P. S., Unsworth, N., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2012) · European Journal of Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000123 · Cited by 457
“For example, Kane and Engle (2003) compared high- and low-WMC individuals on accuracy and response times to different Stroop task conditions by manipulating the frequency of incongruent trials, the order of task conditions, and the presence of feedback.”
MethodSelf-citationAn attentional scope model of rumination.
Whitmer, A. J., & Gotlib, I. H. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0030923 · Cited by 485
“Thus, participants who are better able to maintain the task goal in WM will perform better on the incongruent trials because they are able to attend to task-relevant information, which in turn minimizes the interference caused by distracting information (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Benchmarks for models of short-term and working memory.
Oberauer, K., Lewandowsky, S., Awh, E., Brown, G. D. A., Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., Donkin, C., Farrell, S., Hitch, G. J., Hurlstone, M. J., et al. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000153 · Cited by 477
Variation in Working Memory Capacity as Variation in Executive Attention and Control
Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2008) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195168648.003.0002 · Cited by 438
Self-citationProcess Overlap Theory: A Unified Account of the General Factor of Intelligence
Kovacs, K., & Conway, A. R. A. (2016) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2016.1153946 · Cited by 458
“…maintenance and the inhibition of irrelevant stimuli (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Conway, Tuholski, Shisler, & Engle, 1999; Kane et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003), and are better at resolving proactive interference from previous trials (Bunting, 2006; Kane & Engle, 2000; Unsworth & Engle,…”
Förster, J., Liberman, N., & Friedman, R. (2007) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868307303029 · Cited by 408
“This effect, which was recently attributed to deficits in working memory (Baddeley, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003), can very generally be interpreted as a loss of concentration or loss of one’s focus on the original goal.”
BackgroundNash Unsworth, A., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1302 · Cited by 427
“Kane and Engle (2003) recently demonstrated the importance of”
BackgroundSelf-citationMoore, A., Clark, B. A., & Kane, M. J. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02122.x · Cited by 425
“Finally, the dual-process model of Greene et al. (2004) predicts that subjects with higher WMC will be faster to endorse personal killing than will subjects with lowerWMC, because subjects with higher WMC better control Stroop-like response conflicts (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Self-citationWorking memory and executive functions: effects of training on academic achievement
Titz, C., & Karbach, J. (2014) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-013-0537-1 · Cited by 388
“…which are supported by executive control processes controlling the allocation of attention on cognitively demanding tasks (e.g., Kane et al., 2004; Kane & Engle, 2003), are particularly predictive of learning and academic success (e.g., Gathercole et al., 2004) and seem to be prone to…”
McElree, B. (2006) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(06)46005-9 · Cited by 384
Modeling working memory: An interference model of complex span
Oberauer, K., Lewandowsky, S., Farrell, S., Jarrold, C., & Greaves, M. (2012) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0272-4 · Cited by 402
“Therefore, individual differences in the removal parameter could provide an explanation for the associations between complex-span and executive-attention measures without any memory component, such as the Stroop effect (Kane & Engle, 2003) and the antisaccade task (Unsworth et al., 2004).”
BackgroundMethodDelay discounting and intelligence: A meta-analysis
Shamosh, N. A., & Gray, J. R. (2007) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2007.09.004 · Cited by 392
Executive function in early childhood: Longitudinal measurement invariance and developmental change.
Willoughby, M. T., Family Life Project Investigators, Wirth, R. J., & Blair, C. (2011) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/a0025779 · Cited by 413
“This span-like task is based upon principles described by Engle, Kane, and collaborators (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Nash Unsworth, A., & Spillers, G. J. (2010) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010.02.001 · Cited by 373
Human Variation in Overriding Attentional Capture
Fukuda, K., & Vogel, E. K. (2009) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2145-09.2009 · Cited by 381
“Indeed, many cognitive tasks require the ability to ignore signals from salient but irrelevant stimuli so that we may restrict attention to stimuli that are related to our goals (Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodParental Behaviours Predicting Early Childhood Executive Functions: a Meta-Analysis
Valcan, D. S., Davis, H. L., & Pino‐Pasternak, D. (2017) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-017-9411-9 · Cited by 441
McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0025896 · Cited by 391
“Our idea was that WMC should predict goal neglect, especially in situations that put a premium on proactively maintaining goal access (Kane & Engle, 2003; see also Marcovitch, Boseovski, Knapp, & Kane, 2010).”
Self-citationFriedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Robinson, J. L., & Hewitt, J. K. (2011) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0023750 · Cited by 357
“…maintenance is a crucial requirement of all the tasks and may be particularly influential in response inhibition tasks and tasks that involve conflict (which many of our EF tasks do), a view consistent with goal-directed views of inhibitory control (Kane & Engle, 2003; Morton & Munakata, 2002).”
BackgroundA unitary executive function predicts intelligence in children
Brydges, C. R., Reid, C. L., Fox, A. M., & Anderson, M. (2012) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2012.05.006 · Cited by 351
“…to alternate between adding and subtracting numbers, and (3) updating, a major component of working memory that is implicated in the manipulation of incoming information, indicated by keep track, tone monitoring, and letter memory tasks (Kane & Engle, 2003; Miyake et al., 2000; Monsell, 2003).”
BackgroundThe role of working memory in attentional capture
Lavie, N., & de Fockert, J. W. (2005) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196756 · Cited by 361
“For example, Kane and Engle (2003) showed that low-span subjects make more erroneous responses to a distracting incongruent word in the Stroop task than high-span subjects, suggesting involvement of working memory capacity in control of distractor responses.”
BackgroundBugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. C. (2012) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00367 · Cited by 344
“…effects are larger for mostly congruent than mostly incongruent blocks, a finding termed the LWPC effect (e.g., Shor, 1975; Logan and Zbrodoff, 1979; Lowe and Mitterer, 1982; Logan et al., 1984; Cheesman and Merikle, 1986; Lindsay and Jacoby, 1994; West and Baylis, 1998; Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundResultChatham, C. H., Frank, M. J., & Munakata, Y. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0810002106 · Cited by 368
What limits working memory capacity?
Oberauer, K., Farrell, S., Jarrold, C., & Lewandowsky, S. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000046 · Cited by 416
Language and the perception of emotion.
Lindquist, K. A., Barrett, L. F., Bliss‐Moreau, E., & Russell, J. A. (2006) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.125 · Cited by 326
“Stroop interference does not often appear in response accuracy (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003), because people tend to favor accuracy over speed.”
BackgroundIndividual differences in working memory
Jarrold, C., & Towse, J. N. (2005) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.07.002 · Cited by 336
Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations
Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196526 · Cited by 316
“Moreover, the ability to maintain the goal of color naming is thought to vary across individuals (see, e.g., Kane & Engle, 2002; West & Baylis, 1998).”
BackgroundStevens, L., Verdejo‐García, A., Goudriaan, A. E., Roeyers, H., Dom, G., & Vanderplasschen, W. (2014) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2014.01.008 · Cited by 340
“…and (executive) functions involved in interference control (inhibition, working memory and attention) and riskreward decision-making (planning, reversal learning and interoceptive awareness) in particular represent interesting targets for consideration (Dunn et al., 2010; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundLacking Power Impairs Executive Functions
Smith, P. K., Jostmann, N. B., Galinsky, A. D., & DIJK, W. W. V. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02107.x · Cited by 327
“Thus, data from 171 participants (117 females, 54 males) were analyzed.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAging and Response Inhibition: Normative Data for the Victoria Stroop Test
Troyer, A. K., Leach, L. R., & Strauss, E. (2006) · Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition · doi:10.1080/138255890968187 · Cited by 299
“This interference may reflect difficulties in a number of areas: (a) a decreased ability to disengage from the dominant reading response, (b) an increased tendency to respond impulsively, and/or (c) a failure to maintain the task goal of ignoring the word dimension ( Kane & Engle, 2003 ).”
BackgroundInhibition and shifting in children with learning deficits in arithmetic and reading
van der Sluis, S., de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2003.12.002 · Cited by 330
Executive Functioning Heterogeneity in Pediatric ADHD
Kofler, M. J., Irwin, L. N., Soto, E. F., Groves, N. B., Harmon, S. L., & Sarver, D. E. (2019) · Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10802-018-0438-2 · Cited by 288
“A ratio of 80:20 go:no-go stimuli was selected to maximize prepotency (Kane and Engle 2003; Unsworth and Engle 2007).”
BackgroundWilloughby, M. T., The Family Life Project Investigators, Blair, C. B., Wirth, R. J., & Greenberg, M. (2010) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/a0018708 · Cited by 280
“The WM task is a spanlike measure that is based on principles described by Engle, Kane and collaborators (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Lying takes time: A meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception.
Suchotzki, K., Verschuère, B., Bockstaele, B. V., Ben‐Shakhar, G., & Crombez, G. (2017) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000087 · Cited by 309
The role of the executive functions in school achievement at the end of Grade 1
Monette, S., Bigras, M., & Guay, M. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.01.008 · Cited by 330
Martinussen, R., & Tannock, R. (2006) · Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/13803390500205700 · Cited by 270
“…results are consistent with behavioral and neuroimaging data with normal adults that has demonstrated that working memory (C.E.) plays a critical role in one’s ability to control attention (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; De Fockert et al. 2001; Engle, Kane, & Tuholski, 1999; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
ResultScope of attention, control of attention, and intelligence in children and adults
Cowan, N., Fristoe, N. M., Elliott, E. M., Brunner, R. P., & Saults, J. S. (2006) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03195936 · Cited by 313
“The latter include the goal of naming the color of ink of a word that spells out a different color ( Kane & Engle, 2003; Stroop, 1935), the goal of making eye movements away from rather than toward an object appearing on the screen, an “antisaccade” movement (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Unsworth, Schrock, &…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialNeural Correlates of Verbal Working Memory: An fMRI Meta-Analysis
Emch, M., von Bastian, C. C., & Koch, K. (2019) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00180 · Cited by 277
What Mind Wandering Reveals About Executive-Control Abilities and Failures
Kane, M. J., & McVay, J. C. (2012) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721412454875 · Cited by 301
Self-citationWorking Memory Capacity and Fluid Intelligence: Maintenance and Disengagement
Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., & Engle, R. W. (2016) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691616650647 · Cited by 238
“It should be noted that tests of attention control carry a low memory load and instead are oriented toward requiring participants to engage controlled processing on a consistent basis (see Kane & Engle, 2003; Roberts, Hager, & Heron, 1994).”
BackgroundSelf-citationCogmed working memory training: Does the evidence support the claims?
Shipstead, Z., Hicks, K. L., & Engle, R. W. (2012) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.06.003 · Cited by 249
“Rather, individual differences in WM capacity are most apparent when sustained, self-initiated, control (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004) or focus (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Heitz & Engle, 2007; Poole & Kane, 2009; Shipstead,…”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationCORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND WORKING MEMORY CAPACITY IN INTERACTION-DRIVEN L2 LEARNING
Goo, J. (2012) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263112000149 · Cited by 257
“…mechanism operates in noticing recasts, individual differences in WMC still impact the extent to which learners notice recasts because WMC variation is also mirrored in learner performance on simple attention-control tasks (e.g., Conway et al., 2001 ; Kane et al., 2001 ; Kane & Engle, 2003 ).”
BackgroundResultNash Unsworth, A., & Robison, M. K. (2017) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1220-5 · Cited by 277
“As noted by Kane and Engle (2003) these mixed results could arise because differences in RTs between high and low WMC individuals in conflict resolution situations may be masked and thus require a large number of trials to find a somewhat small effect.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialTemporal clustering and sequencing in short-term memory and episodic memory.
Farrell, S. (2012) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0027371 · Cited by 256
Does working memory training generalize?
Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2010) · Psychologica Belgica · doi:10.5334/pb-50-3-4-245 · Cited by 242
“As might be predicted, given the links between WMC and attention, high WMC participants generally show less slowing in response to incongruent Stroop stimuli than do low WMC individuals (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationFocusing the spotlight: Individual differences in visual attention control.
Heitz, R. P., & Engle, R. W. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.217 · Cited by 257
“Kane and Engle (2003) had participants with low WM spans and high WM spans perform the Stroop task (Stroop, 1935).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationWorking Memory Maturation: Can We Get at the Essence of Cognitive Growth?
Cowan, N. (2016) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691615621279 · Cited by 225
“…slots in working memory increases with age (the number of separate chunks that can be maintained at once: Cowan, Elliott, et al., 2005), or it could be that what increases with age is attention-control-related factors that allow the slots to be filled most usefully (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundInfluentialDo Different Components of Working Memory Underlie Different Subgroups of Reading Disabilities?
Swanson, H. L., Howard, C. B., & Sáez, L. (2006) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/00222194060390030501 · Cited by 236
The emergence and basis of endogenous attention in infancy and early childhood
Colombo, J., & Cheatham, C. L. (2006) · Advances in Child Development and Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0065-2407(06)80010-8 · Cited by 238
Levinson, D. B., Smallwood, J., & Davidson, R. J. (2012) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611431465 · Cited by 232
“%) relieve WM from proactively maintaining these goals (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundTaking working memory training from the laboratory into schools
Holmes, J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2013) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.797338 · Cited by 268
“These tasks, which closely resemble the trained tasks, are strongly associated with the ability control and focus attention in cognitively demanding situations (e.g. Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundBilingualism influences inhibitory control in auditory comprehension
Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2010) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.012 · Cited by 232
Metadata
- Authors
- Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-70
- ISSN
- 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2222
- OpenAlex
- W2118932991
- Cited by
- 1,725
- References
- 122
- Citations by year
- 2026: 53 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 93 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 84 · 2016: 103 · 2015: 94 · 2014: 102 · 2013: 92 · 2012: 115
- FWCI
- 18.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- libres.uncg.edu
- 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
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Keywords
- working memory capacity, Stroop interference, executive function, goal neglect, response competition, task sets, selective attention, goal maintenance, individual differences, reaction time (psychology), incongruent trials
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attention, Competitive Behavior, Goals, Humans, Memory, Psychological Tests, Random Allocation, Reaction Time
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
