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 101–200 of 1,005
A review of eye tracking for understanding and improving diagnostic interpretation
Brunyé, T. T., Drew, T. W., Weaver, D. L., & Elmore, J. G. (2019) · Cognitive Research Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-019-0159-2 · Cited by 228
Working memory training in typically developing children: A meta-analysis of the available evidence.
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2017) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0000265 · Cited by 216
“…http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000265 1 intelligence (Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999) and measures of cognitive control such as the Stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003), the go/no-go task (Redick, Calvo, Gay, & Engle, 2011), and the dichotic-listening task (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001).”
InfluentialCreativity and Intelligence Revisited: A Latent Variable Analysis of Wallach and Kogan ()
Silvia, P. J. (2008) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400410701841807 · Cited by 219
“People high in working memory span are better at resisting cognitive interference (Kane & Engle, 2003 ), and success at divergent thinking tasks probably requires overcoming the interference caused by obvious responses and one's prior responses.”
BackgroundSchmeichel, B. J., & Tang, D. (2015) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721414555178 · Cited by 228
“For example, the capacity to update the contents of working memory contributes to logical reasoning (e.g., Kyllonen & Christal, 1990), dual tasking (e.g., D’Esposito et al., 1995), goal maintenance (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003), and planning (e.g., Miyake et al., 2000).”
BackgroundPeriañez, J. A., Lubrini, G., Garcı́a-Gutiérrez, A., & Lago, M. R. (2020) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acaa034 · Cited by 220
Neural efficiency as a function of task demands
Dunst, B., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., Bergner, S., Koschutnig, K., Sommer, M., Ischebeck, A. K., Spinath, B., Arendasy, M. E., Bühner, M., et al. (2013) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.09.005 · Cited by 222
Working memory span development: A time-based resource-sharing model account.
Barrouillet, P., Gavens, N., Vergauwe, E., Gaillard, V., & Camos, V. (2009) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0014615 · Cited by 242
“…case for complex activities such as reading sentences and solving arithmetic equations (Conway, Kane, & Engle, 2003; Engle, Kane, & Tuholski, 1999; Kane & Engle, 2003), but also for simpler activities such as reading letters or digits, for which attention is needed to activate relevant…”
BackgroundMcNab, F., Leroux, G., Strand, F., Thorell, L., Bergman, S., & Klingberg, T. (2008) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.04.023 · Cited by 209
“…linked to IQ (Horn, Dolan, Elliott, Deakin, & Woodruff, 2003), and performance is associated in both normal (e.g. Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2000, 2003; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004), and clinical populations such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)…”
InfluentialMind wandering while reading easy and difficult texts
Feng, S., D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2013) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0367-y · Cited by 257
“Similarly, Smallwood et al. (2004) found that in a sustained-attentionto-response task (Robertson, Manly, Andrade, Baddeley, & Yiend, 1997), mind wandering was less likely to occur in the first than in the second half of the task, which suggests that mind wandering increased when the task became easier, due to practic…”
BackgroundHow to Exploit Diversity for Scientific Gain
Vogel, E. K., & Awh, E. (2008) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00569.x · Cited by 199
The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension
Chiappe, D. L., & Chiappe, P. (2007) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.11.006 · Cited by 198
The Disruptive Effect of Self-Objectification on Performance
Quinn, D. M., Kallen, R. W., Twenge, J. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006) · Psychology of Women Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00262.x · Cited by 195
“That is, decreases in attentional resources available for the task lead to slower overall responding (see Engle, 2002; Kane & Engle, 2003, for related discussions).”
BackgroundAging and self-regulated language processing.
Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., Miller, L. M. S., & Hertzog, C. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.582 · Cited by 190
Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and Reasoning Ability
Oberauer, K., Süß, H., Wilhelm, O., & Sander, N. (2008) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195168648.003.0003 · Cited by 202
Implications of Infant Cognition for Executive Functions at Age 11
Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., & Jankowski, J. J. (2012) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612444902 · Cited by 182
“Selective attention has been shown to constrain both working memory (Cowan, 2011) and inhibition (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundNash Unsworth, A., Redick, T. S., Lakey, C. E., & Young, D. L. (2009) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2009.08.002 · Cited by 209
“With a short RSI the Stroop effect was a non-significant 11 ms.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialKane, M. J., Meier, M. E., Smeekens, B. A., Gross, G. M., Chun, C. A., Silvia, P. J., & Kwapil, T. R. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000184 · Cited by 216
“Moreover, relatively " simple " attention tasks also varied with WMC (e.g., Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Self-citationBehavioral and ERP indices of response conflict in Stroop and flanker tasks
Tillman, C. M., & Wiens, S. (2011) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01203.x · Cited by 193
Cognitive Control Predicts Use of Model-based Reinforcement Learning
Otto, A. R., Skatova, A., Madlon‐Kay, S., & Daw, N. D. (2014) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00709 · Cited by 202
“Indeed, stable individual differences in cognitive control ability are thought in part to reflect differences in controlled or executive-dependent processing (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundImproving children's working memory and classroom performance
Clair‐Thompson, H. S., Stevens, R. F., Hunt, A., & Bolder, E. (2010) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410903509259 · Cited by 212
Hughes, R. W., Hurlstone, M. J., Marsh, J. E., Vachon, F., & Jones, D. M. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/a0029064 · Cited by 183
“This account harmonizes nicely with the finding that individuals high in working memory capacity—associated typically with increased ability to actively maintain task-goal representations in a highly accessible state (Kane & Engle, 2003)—are less susceptible to the deviation effect (Sörqvist, 2010).”
BackgroundMethodNash Unsworth, A., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03195310 · Cited by 181
“The same procedure is repeated until three question marks (???) appear, indicating to the partici pant that it is time to recall the words from that set in the correct order.”
BackgroundSelf-citationKane, M. J., Poole, B. J., Tuholski, S. W., & Engle, R. W. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.749 · Cited by 197
“However, we have previously found that WMC span tasks using verbal stimuli correlate reasonably well with storage-only spatial tasks, and a growing literature suggests some domain-general executive involvement in the storage of visuospatial information (see Kane et al., 2004, for a review). Moreover, verbal memory tas…”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationIndividual differences in working memory capacity and divided attention in dichotic listening
Colflesh, G. J. H., & Conway, A. R. A. (2007) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196824 · Cited by 180
“The results of previous studies (Kane et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003) suggest that the level of attentional demand that a task has may influence the relationship that WMC plays in the completion of the task.”
MethodResultInfluentialPratt, N. L., Willoughby, A. R., & Diane Swick, A. (2011) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00057 · Cited by 195
“The current results also suggest that divided attention is detrimental to working memory, especially under more difficult conditions (Kane and Engle, 2003).”
ResultAuditory distraction: A duplex-mechanism account
Hughes, R. W. (2014) · PsyCh Journal · doi:10.1002/pchj.44 · Cited by 184
Inability to suppress salient distractors predicts low visual working memory capacity
Gaspar, J. M., Christie, G. J., Prime, D. J., Jolicœur, P., & McDonald, J. J. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1523471113 · Cited by 177
Kuhn, L., Willoughby, M. T., Wilbourn, M. P., Vernon‐Feagans, L., Blair, C., & The Family Life Project Key Investigators (2014) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.12249 · Cited by 204
“Based on the work from Engle, Kane, and colleagues (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003), the task was scored by the number of colors or animals that children correctly recalled.”
MethodEffects of incentive on working memory capacity: Behavioral and pupillometric data
Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2007) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00605.x · Cited by 176
“We have shown that working memory capacity is related to performance not only on memory tasks, but also lower level tasks that require the effortful control of attention in the face of interference (e.g., antisaccade, Eriksen flanker, and Stroop paradigms; see Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004; Heitz & Engle, 2007; Kan…”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe cognitive determinants of behavioral distraction by deviant auditory stimuli: a review
Parmentier, F. B. R. (2013) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-013-0534-4 · Cited by 183
Comparison of four scoring methods for the reading span test
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2005) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03192728 · Cited by 172
“…and selecting the top 25% and bottom 25% of the participants as high spans and low spans for later experiments) is not the same as dichotomizing continuous variables after data collection for the purpose of analyzing the data (for a recent example of extreme group designs, see Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundEmotion Regulation Mediates the Relationship between ADHD and Depressive Symptoms in Youth
Seymour, K. E., Chronis-Tuscano, A. M., Halldorsdottir, T., Stupica, B., Owens, K., & Sacks, T. (2011) · Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology · doi:10.1007/s10802-011-9593-4 · Cited by 187
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034910 · Cited by 170
“…intelligence indices, but we also included measures of executive functioning because the latter are strongly associated with fluid intelligence (Duncan et al., 2008; Duncan, Schramm, Thompson, & Dumontheil, 2012; Kane & Engle, 2002, 2003; Kane, Hambrick, & Conway, 2005; Salthouse et al., 2003).”
Smeekens, B. A., & Kane, M. J. (2016) · Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts · doi:10.1037/aca0000046 · Cited by 185
“…with research showing that WMC variation also correlates with performance on “simpler” attention-control tasks (e.g., Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003; Unsworth & Spillers, 2010), has led some theorists to propose that domain general executive-control mechanisms contribute…”
BackgroundSelf-citationDissociations among tasks involving inhibition: A single-case study
Hamilton, A. C., & Martin, R. C. (2005) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/cabn.5.1.1 · Cited by 175
“This was in accord with recent studies suggesting that facilitation may also reflect poor performance in the Stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialThe Cognitive Neuroscience of Working Memory: Relevance to CNTRICS and Schizophrenia
Barch, D. M., & Smith, E. E. (2008) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.03.003 · Cited by 175
Working Memory and Reading Difficulties: What We Know and What We Don’t Know About the Relationship
Savage, R. S., Lavers, N., & Pillay, V. (2006) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9024-1 · Cited by 190
Congruency Sequence Effects without Feature Integration or Contingency Learning Confounds
Schmidt, J. R., & Weissman, D. H. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102337 · Cited by 171
“It has been suggested that using a low proportion of congruent trials might encourage subjects to focus attention on all trials [18], which might reduce the probability of observing CSEs.”
BackgroundWorking memory and executive function: The influence of content and load on the control of attention
Hester, R., & Garavan, H. (2005) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03195311 · Cited by 161
“Kane, Engle, and colleagues (Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003) have proposed that cognitive measures of WM capacity reflect an individual’s capacity to maintain information, including task goals, in a highly active state despite…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialAppraisal components and emotion traits: Examining the appraisal basis of trait curiosity
Silvia, P. J. (2007) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930701298481 · Cited by 170
“Examining the psychological processes that underlie stable traits provides a dynamic understanding of individual differences and mutually enhances the study of both states and traits (eg, Atkinson, 1964 ; Kane & Engle, 2003 ).”
BackgroundExecutive Functioning Component Mechanisms and Schizophrenia
Kerns, J. G., Nuechterlein, K. H., Braver, T. S., & Barch, D. M. (2008) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.04.027 · Cited by 168
Exercise and Working Memory: An Individual Differences Investigation
Sibley, B. A., & Beilock, S. L. (2007) · Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1123/jsep.29.6.783 · Cited by 161
“Executive attention can be thought of as an attentional capability that allows for the active maintenance of memory representations, such as action plans, goal states, or task-relevant stimuli, in the face of interference ( Kane & Engle, 2003 ).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Importance of Handwriting Speed in Adult Writing
Peverly, S. T. (2006) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2901_10 · Cited by 164
“…even when expertise in reading is statistically removed (Engle, Cantor, & Carullo, 1992), and high-span participants are better able to ignore potentially distracting stimuli in Stroop and dichotic-listening tasks than low-span participants (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundDistinct mechanisms for the impact of distraction and interruption on working memory in aging
Clapp, W. C., & Gazzaley, A. H. (2010) · Neurobiology of Aging · doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2010.01.012 · Cited by 176
Executive Functions in Children With Specific Language Impairment: A Meta-Analysis
Pauls, L. J., & Archibald, L. M. D. (2016) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2016_jslhr-l-15-0174 · Cited by 189
Gajewski, P. D., Hanisch, E., Falkenstein, M., Thönes, S., & Wascher, E. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02208 · Cited by 191
Attentional control and the relatedness proportion effect in semantic priming.
Hutchison, K. A. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.645 · Cited by 157
“As argued by MacLeod (1991) and Kane and Engle (2003), this facilitation for congruent trials may reflect fast (or clean) errors, in which participants actually respond with the name of the word itself, rather than with the color.”
InfluentialKousaie, S., & Phillips, N. A. (2011) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.604788 · Cited by 156
Townley, R. A., Graff-Radford, J., Mantyh, W. G., Botha, H., Polsinelli, A. J., Przybelski, S. A., Machulda, M. M., Makhlouf, A. T., Senjem, M. L., Murray, M. E., et al. (2020) · Brain Communications · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcaa068 · Cited by 145
Everyday attention: Mind wandering and computer use during lectures
Risko, E. F., Buchanan, D., Medimorec, S., & Kingstone, A. F. (2013) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.001 · Cited by 167
Working memory capacity and retrieval from long-term memory: the role of controlled search
Nash Unsworth, A., Brewer, G. A., & Spillers, G. J. (2012) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0261-x · Cited by 165
A human cognition framework for information visualization
Patterson, R., Blaha, L. M., Grinstein, G., Liggett, K. K., Kaveney, D. E., Sheldon, K. C., Havig, P. R., & Moore, J. (2014) · Computers & Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.cag.2014.03.002 · Cited by 156
Nash Unsworth, A., & Robison, M. K. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000421 · Cited by 165
“with on-task thoughts (see also Kang et al., 2014; Smallwood et al., 2011, 2012). Thus, prior work suggests that overall baseline/ tonic levels of pupil diameter are an indicator of arousal levels and the current attentional state. Whereas baseline pupil size seems to provide an index of overall arousal, phasic pupill…”
BackgroundThe structure of working memory in young children and its relation to intelligence
Gray, S., Green, S., Alt, M., Hogan, T., Kuo, T., Brinkley, S., & Cowan, N. (2017) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2016.06.004 · Cited by 150
Bélanger, S., Belleville, S., & Gauthier, S. G. (2009) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.10.021 · Cited by 148
Individual Differences in Susceptibility to False Memory in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott Paradigm.
Watson, J. M., Bunting, M. F., Poole, B. J., & Conway, A. R. A. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.76 · Cited by 150
“Kane and Engle (2003) , it is noteworthy that the predicted twoway interaction of span and warning in false recall was not significant.”
BackgroundRummel, J., & Boywitt, C. D. (2014) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0580-3 · Cited by 182
“WMC has been shown to predict various intellectual capabilities and is generally seen as an indicator of cognitive-processing capacity (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundAttentional Control Activation Relates to Working Memory in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Burgess, G. C., Depue, B. E., Ruzic, L., Willcutt, E. G., Du, Y. P., & Banich, M. T. (2010) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.10.036 · Cited by 147
“Others have argued that the demands for task set maintenance vary across different Stroop task conditions (9).”
InfluentialSelf-Regulated Learning and the Allocation of Study Time
Dunlosky, J. T., & Ariel, R. (2011) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-385527-5.00004-8 · Cited by 156
Lying and executive control: An experimental investigation using ego depletion and goal neglect
Debey, E., Verschuère, B., & Crombez, G. (2012) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.03.004 · Cited by 151
“Several studies have supported the hypothesis that individuals with a high working memory capacity differ primarily from participants with a low working memory capacity in a better control of actively maintaining goal-relevant information (Kane and Engle, 2003; Kane et al., 2007; McVay and Kane, 2009; Unsworth et al.,…”
BackgroundThe nature of restructuring in insight: An individual-differences approach
Ash, I. K., & Wiley, J. (2006) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03193814 · Cited by 145
“On the other hand, WM span measures do not reliably predict performance on tasks that involve habitual or overlearned responses or depend on the automatic spread of activation (see, e.g., Conway & Engle, 1994; Kane & Engle, 2003 ).”
BackgroundEye-Movement Strategies in Developmental Prosopagnosia and “Super” Face Recognition
Bobak, A. K., Parris, B. A., Gregory, N. J., Bennetts, R. J., & Bate, S. (2016) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2016.1161059 · Cited by 144
Redick, T. S., Calvo, A., Gay, C. E., & Engle, R. W. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0022216 · Cited by 139
Self-citationRecalling a Witnessed Event Increases Eyewitness Suggestibility
Chan, J. C. K., Thomas, A. K., & Bulevich, J. B. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02245.x · Cited by 160
“Subjects in both the test and the no-test conditions then completed a brief demographic questionnaire and two distractor tasks, a synonym and antonym vocabulary test (Salthouse, 1993) and a computerized operation span (OSPAN) task (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Hutchison, K. A. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0023437 · Cited by 141
Altamirano, L. J., Miyake, A., & Whitmer, A. J. (2010) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797610381505 · Cited by 141
“Because this task was optimized for inducing goal-neglect errors (Kane & Engle, 2003), the primary dependent measure was accuracy, though we also examined RTs. Voice-key errors and RTs outside the range of 150 ms to 3,000 ms or more than 3 standard deviations from the subject’s mean were removed…”
BackgroundMethodIs executive control related to working memory capacity and fluid intelligence?
Rey-Mermet, A., Gade, M., Souza, A. S., von Bastian, C. C., & Oberauer, K. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000593 · Cited by 159
Dissociating proactive and reactive control in the Stroop task
Gonthier, C., Braver, T. S., & Bugg, J. M. (2016) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-016-0591-1 · Cited by 140
“…reduced when most of the trials in a task block are incongruent, as compared with a mostly congruent block (e.g. Bugg, 2014a; Bugg & Chanani, 2011; Bugg, McDaniel, Scullin, & Braver 2011; Hutchison, 2011; Kane & Engle, 2003; Lindsay & Jacoby, 1994; Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979; Lowe & Mitterer, 1982).”
Chevalier, N., & Blaye, A. (2009) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015409 · Cited by 158
Balota, D. A., Tse, C., Hutchison, K. A., Spieler, D. H., Duchek, J. M., & Morris, J. C. (2010) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/a0017474 · Cited by 151
“For example, performance in the Stroop task has been linked to higher level executive control systems (see, e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Lusk, D. L., Evans, A. D., Jeffrey, T. R., Palmer, K. R., Wikstrom, C. S., & Doolittle, P. E. (2009) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00848.x · Cited by 135
“…et al, 2001), long-term memory activation (Cantor & Engle, 1993), attentional control (Kane et al, 2001), resistance to proactive interference (Kane & Engle, 2000), primary memory maintenance and secondary memory search (Unsworth & Engle, 2007) and resistance to goal neglect (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundCNTRICS Final Task Selection: Executive Control
Barch, D. M., Braver, T. S., Carter, C. S., Poldrack, R. A., & Robbins, T. W. (2008) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbn154 · Cited by 140
The relationship between attention and working memory
Adam, G. (2011) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/conf.fnhum.2011.207.00576 · Cited by 138
A multiperspective approach to the conceptualization of executive functions
Packwood, S., Hodgetts, H. M., & Tremblay, S. (2011) · Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/13803395.2010.533157 · Cited by 168
“Similarly, the Stroop task is mostly considered a measure of inhibitory function (Miyake et al., 2000) but is also used to evaluate working memory (Kane & Engle, 2003), cognitive flexibility (Zalonis et al., 2009), impulse control (Peterson et al., 1999), selective attention (Melcher & Gruber,…”
MethodWorking Memory Capacity as Controlled Attention in Tactical Decision Making
Furley, P., & Memmert, D. (2012) · Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1123/jsep.34.3.322 · Cited by 137
“Just like the antisaccade task, the Stroop task requires participants to maintain one single crucial goal: name the color of the ink in which the word is printed.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialConflict-triggered top-down control: Default mode, last resort, or no such thing?
Bugg, J. M. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0035032 · Cited by 139
“…trials (i.e., a high level of conflict) compared to mostly congruent trials (i.e., a low level of conflict), a pattern termed the LWPC effect (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003; Lindsay & Jacoby, 1994; Logan, 1980; Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979; Logan, Zbrodoff, & Williamson, 1984; Lowe & Mitterer, 1982; West &…”
Working memory capacity and the scope and control of attention
Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., & Engle, R. W. (2015) · Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-015-0899-0 · Cited by 132
“…high scores on complex span tasks also show superior performance onmeasures of attention control (Conway, Bunting, & Cowan, 2001; Kane et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003; Redick & Engle, 2006; Shipstead, Harrison, & Engle, 2012; Unsworth et al., 2004) and memory retrieval (Healy & Miyake, 2009;…”
BackgroundSelf-citationA review of the day–night task: The Stroop paradigm and interference control in young children
Montgomery, D. E., & Koeltzow, T. E. (2010) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2010.07.001 · Cited by 131
LeFevre, J., Berrigan, L. I., Vendetti, C., Kamawar, D., Bisanz, J., Skwarchuk, S., & Smith‐Chant, B. L. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.10.005 · Cited by 131
“…attention is assumed to index the fundamental control processes that are necessary in many complex cognitive tasks, including inhibition of competing responses, goal maintenance, and response selection (Engle, 2002; Kane, Conway, Hambrick, & Engle, 2007; Kane & Engle, 2003; McCabe et al., 2010).”
BackgroundPoole, B. J., & Kane, M. (2009) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470210802479329 · Cited by 139
“…Tuholski, Shisler, & Engle, 1999; Elliott, Barrilleaux, & Cowan, 2006; Heitz & Engle, 2007; Hutchison, 2007; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003; Kiefer, Ahlegian, & Spitzer, 2005; Long & Prat, 2002; McCabe, Robertson, & Smith, 2005; Redick & Engle, 2006; Schweizer &…”
BackgroundSelf-citationWu, W. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192866899.001.0001 · Cited by 134
Nash Unsworth, A. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.1020 · Cited by 138
“performance on attention and inhibition tasks like Stroop ( Kane & Engle, 2003; Long &”
MethodA neural network model of individual differences in task switching abilities
Herd, S. A., O׳Reilly, R. C., Hazy, T. E., Chatham, C. H., Brant, A. M., & Friedman, N. P. (2014) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.04.014 · Cited by 128
“…in response inhibition tasks and other tasks that involve conflict (which many of our EF tasks do), a view consistent with views of inhibitory control as a by-product of goal maintenance (Chatham et al., 2012; Herd et al., 2006; Kane & Engle, 2003; Morton & Munakata, 2002; Munakata et al., 2011).”
BackgroundNeural mechanisms underlying drug-related cue distraction in active cocaine users
Hester, R., & Garavan, H. (2008) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2008.12.009 · Cited by 132
“WM is argued to play a critical role in activelymaintaining attentional priorities, so that when greater load demands are placed on WM, implementing these ‘attentional priorities’ suffers, and greater processing of irrelevant information occurs (Kane and Engle, 2003).”
Awh, E., & Vogel, E. K. (2007) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn0108-5 · Cited by 129
Trait and State Differences in Working Memory Capacity
Ilkowska, M., & Engle, R. W. (2010) · Plenum series on human exceptionality · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1210-7_18 · Cited by 137
“One variation of the Stroop task differentiating between high and low spans manipulates the proportion of congruent and incongruent trials (Kane & Engle, 2003; Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979).”
BackgroundSelf-citationSörqvist, P. (2010) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/mc.38.5.651 · Cited by 126
“…reviews, see Engle, 2002; Unsworth & Engle, 2007), including the antisaccade task (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004), Eriksen’s flanker task (Heitz & Engle, 2007), the attention network test (Redick & Engle, 2006), and the Stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
The central executive as a search process: Priming exploration and exploitation across domains.
Hills, T. T., Todd, P. M., & Goldstone, R. L. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0020666 · Cited by 133
“…consistent evidence in support of it (Hasher, Lustig, & Zacks, 2008; Hasher & Zacks, 1988; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2000; Kane & Engle, 2003; Rosen & Engle, 1998; also see Braver, Gray, & Burgess, 2008, for a similar account based on proactive and reactive control).”
Effect of acute aerobic exercise on cognitive performance: Role of cardiovascular fitness
Chang, Y., Chi, L., Etnier, J. L., Wang, C.-C., Chu, C., & Zhou, C. (2014) · Psychology of sport and exercise · doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.04.007 · Cited by 132
Parris, B. A., Hasshim, N., Wadsley, M. G., Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2021) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-021-01554-x · Cited by 139
Ross, V., Jongen, E. M. M., Wang, W., Brijs, T., Brijs, K., Ruiter, R. A. C., & Wets, G. (2013) · Accident Analysis & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.032 · Cited by 135
“Resolving response conflict resolution is known to rely on WM capacity in that people with higher WM capacity are better in conflict resolution (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundStress matters: randomized controlled trial on the effect of probiotics on neurocognition
Papalini, S., Michels, F., Kohn, N., Wegman, J., van Hemert, S., Roelofs, K., Arias-Vasquez, A., & Aarts, E. (2019) · Neurobiology of Stress · doi:10.1016/j.ynstr.2018.100141 · Cited by 123
“backwards digit span - requires cognitive control (Kane and Engle, 2003), we also investigated how intervention-induced effects on this stress-related working memory performance related to the effects of the intervention on cognitive control responses in the frontal cortex.”
BackgroundStorage capacity explains fluid intelligence but executive control does not
Chuderski, A., Taraday, M., Nȩcka, E., & Smoleń, T. (2012) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2012.02.010 · Cited by 138
“Thus, we followed the logic of Kane and Engle (2003, 2004), who assumed that the relatively frequent incongruent trials support goal maintenance to such an extent that attention control need not be involved so much and the increased time of processing incongruent stimuli hardly reflects the time to…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential(2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511607073 · Cited by 123
The influence of positive mood on different aspects of cognitive control
Martin, E. A., & Kerns, J. G. (2010) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2010.491652 · Cited by 141
“In order to increase prepotent response inhibition demands (Carter et al., 2000; Kane & Engle, 2003), most trials ( 72”
BackgroundThe role of working memory in sport
Furley, P., & Memmert, D. (2010) · International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2010.526238 · Cited by 142
“In contrast to Miller’s (1956) ‘magical number seven’, Cowan (2001) regards the capacity limit of WM as being about four chunks in young adults.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialGuarino, A., Forte, G., Giovannoli, J., & Casagrande, M. (2019) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2019.1584785 · Cited by 137
“Two studies (B elanger, Belleville, & Gauthier, 2010; Zheng et al., 2012) have adopted a modified version of the Stroop Test by adapting it from Kane & Engle (2003), but only one of them (B elanger et al., 2010) found significantly slower RTs in incongruent trials in the elderly with MCI compared…”
MethodWhen are fluid intelligence and working memory isomorphic and when are they not?
Chuderski, A. (2013) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.04.003 · Cited by 120
“I tested this prediction by comparing participants belonging to the 33 and 66 percentiles of a mean from z scores on both WM tasks (referred to as WMC-low and WMC-high groups; for examples of using a similar method see Kane & Engle, 2003; Unsworth & Engle, 2007).”
MethodCNTRICS Final Task Selection: Working Memory
Barch, D. M., Berman, M. G., Engle, R. F., Jones, J. H., Jonides, J., MacDonald, A. W., Nee, D. E., Redick, T. S., & Sponheim, S. R. (2008) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbn153 · Cited by 124
Self-citationLearning to Lie: Effects of Practice on the Cognitive Cost of Lying
Bockstaele, B. V., Verschuère, B., Moens, T., Suchotzki, K., Debey, E., & Spruyt, A. (2012) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00526 · Cited by 122
“A third possible explanation for the group differences during the training phase is goal neglect (e.g., see De Jong et al., 1999; Kane and Engle, 2003; Debey et al., 2012).”
Background
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
