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
Items 901–1,000 of 1,005
Arabacı, G., & Parris, B. A. (2019) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-019-01214-1 · Cited by 17
“…(e.g. general task instructions, relevant information from the previous stimuli or salient cues) that is beneficial for responding to upcoming stimuli (Engle & Kane, 2003; Kane et al., 2007), and, the ability to make use of the previous stimuli to predict the upcoming event (Braver et al., 2007).”
BackgroundResultFerrand, L., Ducrot, S., Chaussé, P., Maïonchi‐Pino, N., O’Connor, R. J., Parris, B. A., Perret, P., Riggs, K. J., & Augustinova, M. (2019) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.12899 · Cited by 13
“…trials still remains unclear and has been interpreted variously as resulting from response convergence (Cohen et al., 1990), inadvertent reading (Kane & Engle, 2003; MacLeod & McDonald, 2000), or competing influences of interference and facilitation in different portions of the RT distribution…”
BackgroundFrontoparietal pattern similarity analyses of cognitive control in monozygotic twins
Tang, R., Etzel, J. A., Kizhner, A., & Braver, T. S. (2021) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118415 · Cited by 13
Slama, H., Fery, P., Verheulpen, D., Vanzeveren, N., & Bogaert, P. V. (2014) · Journal of Child Neurology · doi:10.1177/0883073814550498 · Cited by 14
“Indeed, previous research has shown that Stroop interference is jointly determined by 2 mechanisms, goal maintenance and competition resolution.(72) Scientific literature has also indicated a clear role of dopamine in regulating the dynamic balance between cognitive stability (goal maintenance) and cognitive flexibili…”
Antisaccade costs with static and dynamic targets
Godijn, R., & Kramer, A. F. (2007) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03193780 · Cited by 14
“Engle and colleagues (e.g., Engle, 2000; Engle et al., 1999; Kane et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003; Kane et al., 2006; Unsworth et al., 2004) have proposed a controlledattention view of working memory capacity, according to which working memory capacity refers to the ability to effectively maintain…”
BackgroundCannon, R. L., & Lubar, J. F. (2008) · Journal of Neurotherapy · doi:10.1080/10874200802126191 · Cited by 13
“Engle and Kane (2004) and Kane and Engle (2003) characterized executive attention as comprising those domain-general processes that keep stimulus and goal representations accessible outside of conscious focus, which are most useful and detectable under conditions of interference, distraction, and…”
BackgroundWORKING MEMORY: DEVELOPMENT, DISORDERS AND TRAINING
Westerberg, H. (2004) · Figshare · Cited by 13
A Review of the Interleaving Effect: Theories and Lessons for Future ResearchPreprint
Yan, V. X., Schuetze, B. A., & Eglington, L. G. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/ur6g7 · Cited by 15
Bushell, W. C. (2009) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04960.x · Cited by 12
Exploring the n-back task: insights, applications, and future directions
Huang, S., Chen, C., Mo, Y., Zhao, Y., Zhu, Y., Dong, K., & Xu, T. (2025) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2025.1721330 · Cited by 20
“Moreover, even when lower-WM capacity subjects can respond according to goals, they take more time to resolve the interference created by each incongruent stimulus (Kane and Engle, 2003; Hutchison, 2011).”
Mishra, R., Singh, R. P., & Jaikumar, S. (2021) · Journal of Global Marketing · doi:10.1080/08911762.2021.1926035 · Cited by 12
“It may include fighting the impulse to buy a competing and more appealing product that may not necessarily meet the goals while also suppressing the thoughts and emotions aroused by such temptation (Del Missier et al., 2010; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundWhiting, W. L., & Murdock, K. K. (2021) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218211041851 · Cited by 13
“Response inhibition, as measured by the Stroop task, has reliably been associated with the ability to inhibit prepotent responding in favour of more task-relevant responses (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003; Sugg & McDonald, 1994).”
MethodIrwin Harper, L. N., Groves, N. B., Marsh, C. L., Cole, A. M., & Kofler, M. J. (2023) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2022.2138301 · Cited by 12
Disentangling processing and storage accounts of working memory development in childhood
Superbia-Guimarães, L., & Cowan, N. (2023) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2023.101089 · Cited by 14
Attention, response inhibition, and hoarding: A neuropsychological examination
Norberg, M. M., Meares, S., Stevenson, R. J., Tame, J., Wong, G., Aldrich, P., & Olivier, J. (2023) · Journal of Behavioral Addictions · doi:10.1556/2006.2023.00053 · Cited by 12
“Moreover, hoarding severity was moderately related to Stroop scores when using a computerized Stroop test (Keiser, 2006; Stolcis & McCown, 2018).”
MethodSecond language learning in older adults modulates Stroop task performance and brain activation
Schultz, D. H., Gansemer, A., Allgood, K., Gentz, M., Secilmis, L., Deldar, Z., Savage, C. R., & Saidi, L. G. (2024) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2024.1398015 · Cited by 12
“The assessment task was conducted in English, the participants’ mother tongue.”
BackgroundMethodPredictors of subjective memory functioning in young adults
Csábi, E., Kovács, F. M., & Volosin, M. (2025) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-025-06568-y · Cited by 14
Bardel, C., & Sánchez, L. (2017) · Cited by 13
El papel de la memoria operativa en las diferencias y trastornos del aprendizaje escolar
Fitzgerald, Ó. S., & Gaviria, T. O. (2013) · Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · doi:10.14349/rlp.v45i1.1238 · Cited by 12
Gutiérrez-Martínez, F., Ramos-Ortega, M., & Chaves, J. Ó. V. (2017) · Anales de Psicología · doi:10.6018/analesps.34.1.263431 · Cited by 12
“…existe clara evidencia de la relación entre la CMO y el control ejecutivo-atencional (Engle, 2002; Kane Conway, Hambrick & Engle, 2007); relación que se ha puesto particularmente de manifiesto en las significativas correlaciones con la ejecución mostrada en la tarea de Stroop (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundInfluentialSeah, T. H. S., Matt, L. M., & Coifman, K. G. (2020) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702620953636 · Cited by 12
“This is likely due to the role it plays (together with other EF processes) in supporting the active maintenance of goal-relevant instead of goalirrelevant information in the service of ongoing thoughts and behaviors (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundBrunetti, R., Indraccolo, A., Gatto, C. D., Farina, B., Imperatori, C., Fontana, E., Penso, J. S., Ardito, R. B., & Adenzato, M. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.663786 · Cited by 12
“During the years, the Stroop task was used to measure other cognitive functions such as attention processing speed (Jensen and Rohwer, 1966) and its relationship with working memory (Kane and Engle, 2003).”
MethodRichmond, L. L., Burnett, L. K., Morrison, A. B., & Ball, B. H. (2021) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01645-y · Cited by 14
The shaping of cognitive control based on the adaptive weighting of expectations and experience.
Suh, J., & Bugg, J. M. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0001056 · Cited by 13
Kang, E. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000412 · Cited by 32
Individual Differences in the Ability to Resolve Translation Ambiguity across Languages
Michael, E. B., Tokowick, N., Degani, T., & Smith, C. J. (2011) · Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics · Cited by 12
Lambert, A. E., Seegmiller, J. K., Stefanucci, J. K., & Watson, J. M. (2013) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.2908 · Cited by 14
Effects of working memory capacity on users' search effort
Jacek Gwizdka, A. (2013) · Multimedia Interaction Design and Innovation · doi:10.1145/2500342.2500358 · Cited by 12
“Newer findings suggest the actual limit of working memory capacity may be lower or that it’s nature is different and lies in the control of attention required for effective information processing [11].”
BackgroundExamination of the Role of Expectancies on Task Performance in College Students Concerned about ADHD
Wei, C. C., & Suhr, J. A. (2014) · Applied Neuropsychology Adult · doi:10.1080/23279095.2014.902836 · Cited by 12
“…measures of ‘‘executive’’ working memory, and neuroimaging studies have shown that N-back tasks activate the dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and frontal poles, areas of the brain associated with working memory and ADHD (Kane & Engle, 2003; Owen, McMillan, Laird, & Bullmore, 2005).”
ResultConstantinidou, F., & Evripidou, C. (2011) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2011.602013 · Cited by 13
“…to higher cognitive functioning (Salthouse, 2005) is better measured by tasks that require either dual-processing or inhibiting prepotent responses; both activities that are the hallmark of flexible control of attention (Colflesh & Conway, 2007; Conway et al., 2005; Kane & Engle, 2002, 2003).”
BackgroundIs there any impact of cognitive remediation on an ecological test in schizophrenia?
Royer, A., Grosselin, A., Bellot, C., Pellet, J., Billard, S., Lang, F., Brouillet, D., & Massoubre, C. (2012) · Cognitive Neuropsychiatry · doi:10.1080/13546805.2011.564512 · Cited by 11
“Indeed, improvements observed in the WCST suggest a link between improvements in working memory and improvement on more complex executive functions and organisation of behaviour (Baddeley, 1986, 1992; Cowan, 1988; Engle, 2002; Kane & Engle, 2003; Wykes, Reeder, et al., 2007).”
BackgroundThomassin, N., Gonthier, C., Guerraz, M., & Roulin, J. (2014) · Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000276 · Cited by 12
Siegel, J. E., & Bugg, J. M. (2016) · Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts · doi:10.1037/aca0000071 · Cited by 13
“…effects, individual differences in creativity may be most likely to manifest as variation in performance on the mostly congruent items (see, e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003, for evidence that the mostly congruent condition [list] was more sensitive to individual differences in working memory capacity…”
BackgroundMethodPredictive attentional bias modification induces stimulus-evoked attentional bias for threat
Gladwin, T. E., Möbius, M., & Becker, E. S. (2019) · Europe’s Journal of Psychology · doi:10.5964/ejop.v15i3.1633 · Cited by 14
Effects of various executive functions on adults’ and children’s walking.
Möhring, W., Klupp, S., Segerer, R. K., Schaefer, S., & Grob, A. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000736 · Cited by 12
Impairments in inhibition or cognitive control in psychological disorders
Hertel, P. T. (2007) · Applied and Preventive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.appsy.2007.09.006 · Cited by 13
“An emphasis on cognitive control adequately addresses performance on interference tasks that are sensitive to individual differences (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundBlair, C. (2006) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x06419038 · Cited by 13
Gorlin, E. I., & Teachman, B. A. (2015) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2015.03.001 · Cited by 12
Social presence and the composite face effect
Garcia‐Marques, T., Fernandes, A., Fonseca, R., & Prada, M. (2015) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.04.001 · Cited by 14
Semantic Framing of Speech : Emotional and Topical Cues in Perception of Poorly Specified Speech
Lidestam, B. (2003) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · Cited by 12
Age-related changes of arm movements in dual task condition when walking on different surfaces
Hsieh, Y.-J., & Cho, C.-Y. (2012) · Human Movement Science · doi:10.1016/j.humov.2011.01.005 · Cited by 11
Patience is a virtue: Individual differences in cue-evoked pupil responses under temporal certainty
Hood, A. V. B., Hart, K. M., Marchak, F., & Hutchison, K. A. (2022) · Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-022-02482-7 · Cited by 8
“However, in the early 2000s, Engle and colleagues argued that WMC does not reflect a “capacity” or “amount” per se, but instead reflects the ability to control attention in the face of distraction (Engle, 2002; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundGroves, N. B., Chan, E. S. M., Marsh, C. L., Gaye, F., Jaisle, E. M., & Kofler, M. J. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1034722 · Cited by 14
“, increasing the proportion of “go” trials) increases inhibition demands by increasing prepotency, which makes it more difficult to inhibit during infrequently occurring “stop” trials (67).”
BackgroundEffects of different types of interference on nurses' working memory: An ERP study
Hu, H., Zhang, M., Wu, B., & Wu, X. (2023) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.15784 · Cited by 12
Leder, J., Häusser, J. A., Krumm, S., Germar, M., Schlemmer, A., Kaiser, S., Kalis, A., & Mojzisch, A. (2018) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12678 · Cited by 11
Task manipulation effects on the relationship between working memory and go/no-go task performance
Wiemers, E. A., & Redick, T. S. (2019) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2019.03.006 · Cited by 12
“Kane and Engle (2003) found that though individual differences in WMC were related to Stroop performance, as would be expected based on executive-attention theory (Engle & Kane, 2004), manipulations such as proportion congruency, presence of feedback, and order of tasks affected this relationship similarly to the effe…”
InfluentialJia, L., Qin, X., Cui, J., Shi, H., Ye, J., Yang, T., Wang, Y., & Chan, R. C. K. (2021) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s135561772000137x · Cited by 11
“At the same time, reactive control would be enacted to overcome this interference (DePisapia & Braver, 2006; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundTesting the attention-distractibility trait
Meier, M. E. (2021) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-021-01162-5 · Cited by 14
Electrophysiological correlates of the reverse Stroop effect: Results from a simulated handgun task
Díaz-Piedra, C., Gianfranchi, E., Catena, A., & Stasi, L. L. D. (2022) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.02.006 · Cited by 11
Task structure complexity and goal neglect in typically developing children
Roberts, G., & Anderson, M. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.11.003 · Cited by 11
Parris, B. A., Bate, S., Brown, S. D., & Hodgson, T. L. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046994 · Cited by 11
“[6] and Kane and Engle [7] as being the result of goal neglect would be removed by the primes consistent with the activated goal and that this reduction would be observed as a reduction in the reaction times (RTs) to incongruent trials.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialWhen You Have to Climb Downhill to Reach the Top
Jostmann, N. B., & Gieselmann, A. (2014) · Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000260 · Cited by 11
Dissociable yet tied inhibitory processes: The structure of inhibitory control
Michael, G. A., Mizzi, R., Couffe, C., & Galvéz-García, G. (2014) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-013-0242-y · Cited by 15
Bočíncová, A., van Lamsweerde, A. E., & Johnson, J. S. (2017) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-017-0738-8 · Cited by 11
“Executive resources of this kind have been proposed to play a general role in the mental manipulation of information in working memory, in addition to supporting the suppression of distracting information in other memory tasks (Conway & Engle, 1994; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundZink, N., Stock, A., Vahid, A., & Beste, C. (2018) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00411 · Cited by 13
“…processes depending on task rule complexity because both of those processes are known to be capacity-limited (Meyer and Kieras, 1997; Engle and Kane, 2003; Kane and Engle, 2003; Tombu and Jolicoeur, 2003; Lavie et al., 2004; Marois and Ivanoff, 2005; Sigman and Dehaene, 2008; Engle, 2010;…”
BackgroundThe effects of fantastical television content on Chinese preschoolers’ executive function
Jiang, Y. H., Fu, R., & Xing, S. (2019) · PsyCh Journal · doi:10.1002/pchj.277 · Cited by 14
Marinelli, C. V., Martelli, M., Praphamontripong, P., Zoccolotti, P., & Abadzi, H. (2013) · World Bank, Washington, DC eBooks · doi:10.1596/16244 · Cited by 11
Chuderska, A., & Chuderski, A. (2014) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.825642 · Cited by 10
“…that executive control can operate in two opposing modes: in a top-down, proactive mode, which anticipates and prevents events involving control, and in a bottom-up, reactive mode, which deals with distracting events once they occurred (Braver, Gray, & Burgess, 2007; see also Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodBenny, B., & Banks, J. (2015) · Journal of Individual Differences · doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000160 · Cited by 14
Executive control influences linguistic representations
Lev‐Ari, S., & Keysar, B. (2013) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-013-0352-3 · Cited by 11
“We chose to use a working memory measure, because working memory is a measure of executive control (Kane et al., 2007), and has been shown to predict performance on different types of inhibition tasks (e.g., Aslan & Bäuml, 2011; Kane & Engle, 2003; Rosen & Engle, 1998).”
BackgroundMethodZouraraki, C., Tsaousis, I., Karamaouna, P., Karagiannopoulou, L., Roussos, P., Bitsios, P., & Giakoumaki, S. G. (2016) · Comprehensive Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2016.08.010 · Cited by 12
Ortells, J. J., Álvarez, D., Noguera, C., Carmona, E., & de Fockert, J. W. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00129 · Cited by 11
“For instance, during the Stroop or Eriksen flanker tasks, low WM capacity individuals are more prone to interference from the irrelevant attribute of the stimulus than those with high WM capacity (e.g., Kane and Engle, 2003; Ahmed and De Fockert, 2012).”
BackgroundThe role of goal cueing in kindergarteners’ working memory
Fitamen, C., Blaye, A., & Camos, V. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104666 · Cited by 11
Development of Cognitive Flexibility
Blaye, A. (2022) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119902737.ch2 · Cited by 11
Eng, C. M., Vargas, R., Fung, H. L., Niemi, S. R., Pocsai, M., Fisher, A. V., & Thiessen, E. D. (2025) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2025.101570 · Cited by 10
“A smaller Conflict Effect is taken as a sign of more effective EF (Kane and Engle, 2003; Engle and Kane, 2004; Duell et al., 2018).”
The Assessment of Executive Function Using the Cognitive Assessment System: Second Edition
Naglieri, J. A., & Otero, T. M. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8106-5_12 · Cited by 11
Working memory asymmetrically modulates auditory and linguistic processing of speech
Liu, Y., Luo, C., Zheng, J., Liang, J., & Ding, N. (2022) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119698 · Cited by 10
“Furthermore, the WM system also highly interacts with the attention system (Kane and Engle, 2003; Gazzaley and Nobre, 2012; Oberauer, 2019), with the latter strongly modulating speech recognition (Cherry, 1953; Shinn-Cunningham, 2008).”
BackgroundRobison, M. K., Miller, A. L., Wiemers, E. A., Ellis, D. M., Nash Unsworth, A., Redick, T. S., & Brewer, G. A. (2024) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0001629 · Cited by 12
Parmentier, F. B. R., & Kefauver, M. (2015) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2015.01.034 · Cited by 10
The Psychology of Adopting Intelligent Energy: Lessons and Insights from Unexpected Places
Davidson, J. W., & Lochmann, M. J. (2012) · SPE Intelligent Energy International · doi:10.2118/149998-ms · Cited by 10
Dummel, S., Rummel, J., & Voß, A. (2015) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.12.001 · Cited by 10
Kober, S. E., Spörk, R., Bauernfeind, G., & Wood, G. M. D. O. (2019) · Neurobiology of Aging · doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2019.05.022 · Cited by 10
“Because inhibition capabilities also change with age, this might affect the NIRS signal and the ability to modulate the NIRS signal during NF training in older participants (Belanger et al., 2010; Kane and Engle, 2003; Kober and Wood, 2017b).”
BackgroundChen, P., Su, I., Shih, C., Liu, Y., Su, Y.-K., Li, W., Luh, H., Huang, H., Tsai, P., Fan, Y., et al. (2023) · Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · doi:10.1177/15459683231170539 · Cited by 10
Marsh, J. E., Hughes, R. W., Sörqvist, P., Beaman, C. P., & Jones, D. M. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000121 · Cited by 10
Better target detection in the presence of collinear flankers under high working memory load
de Fockert, J. W., & Leiser, J. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00821 · Cited by 10
“HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE published: 14 October 2014 doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00821 Better target detection in the presence of collinear flankers under high working memory load”
BackgroundInfluentialRepetition suppression in aging: A near-infrared spectroscopy study on the size-congruity effect
Kober, S. E., & Wood, G. M. D. O. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.06.010 · Cited by 10
“Inhibition is a central component of executive functions and is associated with the ability to suppress irrelevant information and restrain inappropriate pre-potent responses (Belanger et al., 2010; Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundGeorges, C., Hoffmann, D., & Schiltz, C. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00775 · Cited by 10
“WM is not only implicated in the Stroop (Long and Prat, 2002; Kane and Engle, 2003; Hutchison, 2011) as well as Flanker effects (Redick and Engle, 2006; Heitz and Engle, 2007), but also likely contributes to number-space associations (van Dijck et al., 2009).”
BackgroundWorking memory benchmarks—A missed opportunity: Comment on Oberauer et al. (2018).
Vandierendonck, A. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000159 · Cited by 10
Aljahlan, Y., & Spaulding, T. J. (2019) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2018_jslhr-l-17-0358 · Cited by 10
Ellis, D. M., Ball, B. H., Kimpton, N., & Brewer, G. A. (2020) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/1747021820909703 · Cited by 12
Luo, X., Azuma, T., Kolberg, C., & Pulling, K. R. (2021) · Journal of Communication Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2021.106170 · Cited by 10
Utilidad del STROOP en la psicología clínica
Herreras, E. B., & Santos, J. L. (2006) · Hispana · Cited by 9
Attentional Interference in Judgments of Musical Timbre: Individual Differences in Working Memory
Hall, M. D., & Blasko, D. G. (2005) · The Journal of General Psychology · doi:10.3200/genp.132.1.94-112 · Cited by 10
“By following the theoretical framework provided by Kane and Engle (2003) , there were a sufficient number of congruent (i.e., same-instrument) trials in the”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSaeki, E. (2007) · PSYCHOLOGIA · doi:10.2117/psysoc.2007.122 · Cited by 10
“This process that keeps the task goal in an active state irrespective of the trial type might be independent of a process related to resolving interference that is specific in incongruent trials (c.f., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundInfluentialAnxiety perseverance in intergroup interaction: When incidental explanations backfire.
West, T. V., Pearson, A. R., & Stern, C. (2014) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0037941 · Cited by 10
Gutzwiller, R. S., Wickens, C. D., & Clegg, B. A. (2015) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931215591138 · Cited by 11
EEG neurofeedback for executive functions in children with neurodevelopmental challenges
Landes, J. K., Reid, C. L., Arns, M., Badcock, N. A., Ros, T., Enriquez‐Geppert, S., Bulsara, M. K., Brini, S., Rabipour, S., Mason, M., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012890 · Cited by 11
Reduced Stroop interference under stress: Decreased cue utilisation, not increased executive control
Booth, R. W. (2018) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/1747021818809368 · Cited by 10
Megías, M., Ortells, J. J., Noguera, C., Carmona, I., & Marı́-Beffa, P. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01227 · Cited by 10
Cognitive and neural underpinnings of goal maintenance in young children
Yanaoka, K., Moriguchi, Y., & Saito, S. (2020) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104378 · Cited by 11
Working memory training shows immediate and long-term effects on cognitive performance in children
Pugin, F., Metz, A. J., Stauffer, M., Wolf, M., Jenni, O. G., & Huber, R. (2015) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.3665.3 · Cited by 11
Recent trends in the cognitive neuroscience of working memory
Conway, A. R. A., Moore, A., & Kane, M. J. (2008) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2008.05.006 · Cited by 12
Self-citationRey-Mermet, A., Singmann, H., & Oberauer, K. (2021) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/3h26y · Cited by 12
Individual Differences in Reward‐Based Learning Predict Fluid Reasoning Abilities
Stocco, A., Prat, C. S., & Graham, L. K. (2021) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12941 · Cited by 10
Smith, P., & Ulrich, R. (2023) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218231201476 · Cited by 9
Rummel, J., Wöstenfeld, F. O., Steindorf, L., & Röer, J. P. (2023) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2023.2273576 · Cited by 9
“The working memory capacity scores should thus be re fl ective of participants attentional control abilities (Engle & Kane, 2004; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundLabonté, K., & Vachon, F. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.659451 · Cited by 11
Working memory training does not improve executive functioning or fluid intelligence
Rodas, J. A., & Greene, C. M. (2021) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218211039502 · Cited by 10
Asymmetric negative transfer effects of working memory training
Ni, N., Gathercole, S. E., Norris, D. G., & Saito, S. (2023) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-023-01412-8 · Cited by 12
“…functions including fluid intelligence (Engle et al., 1999; Kane et al., 2005; Unsworth et al., 2014) and cognitive control (Kane et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003), but also cognitive performance in everyday life, such as reading comprehension, mental arithmetic, reasoning, and academic…”
BackgroundEvaluating the effects of brief mindfulness practice on attentional control and episodic memory
Namias, J. M., & Huff, M. J. (2024) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2024.2381872 · Cited by 6
“For instance, the Stroop colour naming task (Stroop, 1935), which utilises processes such as inhibition and goal maintenance, has been shown to be sensitive to di ff erences in working memory capacity (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
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
