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 201–300 of 1,005
Sandra, D. A., & Otto, A. R. (2018) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.12.004 · Cited by 107
“Separately, we measure each individual’s Stroop incongruence effect, taken here as a measure of executive-dependent processing ability (Kane & Engle, 2003), and accordingly, examine how this processing capacity bears upon reward-induced modulations of task switch costs.”
Working memory and insight in verbal problems: analysis of compound remote associates
Chein, J. M., & Weisberg, R. W. (2013) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-013-0343-4 · Cited by 125
“…direct assessment of attention control by examining individual differences in attention tasks that place few specific demands on memory, including the antisaccade (Munoz & Everling, 2004; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004) and Stroop color-word interference (Kane & Engle, 2003; Stroop, 1935) tasks.”
Nature and measurement of attention control.
Burgoyne, A. P., Tsukahara, J. S., Mashburn, C. A., Pak, R., & Engle, R. W. (2023) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0001408 · Cited by 140
“…the ratio of congruent to incongruent trial types affects correlations between performance and other cognitive abilities, such as working memory capacity (Hutchison, 2011; Kane & Engle, 2003); when incongruent trials are less frequent, performance is more strongly correlated with cognitive ability.”
Self-citationWorking Memory, Task Switching, and Executive Control in the Task Span Procedure.
Logan, G. D. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.218 · Cited by 127
Handbook of Individual Differences in Cognition
Gruszka, A., Matthews, G., & Szymura, B. (2010) · Plenum series on human exceptionality · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1210-7 · Cited by 236
Castel, A. D., Balota, D. A., & McCabe, D. P. (2009) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/a0014888 · Cited by 117
“The selectivity task can also be considered a task with prominent goal maintenance demands (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003), as one must maintain the task goal of selectively attending to high-value items during the task.”
Nash Unsworth, A., Redick, T. S., Spillers, G. J., & Brewer, G. A. (2011) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.597865 · Cited by 120
Individual differences in working memory capacity predict retrieval-induced forgetting.
Aslan, A., & Bäuml, K. T. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0021324 · Cited by 115
“…have been found to predict performance in a number of cognitive tasks that are supposed to require controlled inhibition, including the Stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003), the antisaccade task (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001), and the directed-forgetting task (Aslan, Zellner, & Bäuml, 2010).”
Jostmann, N. B., & Koole, S. L. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.593 · Cited by 116
Executive functioning rating scales: Ecologically valid or construct invalid?
Soto, E. F., Kofler, M. J., Singh, L. J., Wells, E. L., Irwin, L. N., Groves, N. B., & Miller, C. E. (2020) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/neu0000681 · Cited by 115
“A ratio of 80:20 go:no-go stimuli was selected to maximize prepotency (Kane & Engle 2003; Unsworth & Engle 2007).”
BackgroundCastel, A. D., Balota, D. A., Hutchison, K. A., Logan, J. M., & Yap, M. J.-M. (2007) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/0894-4105.21.2.170 · Cited by 115
“Of course, it should be noted that these measures may have limited value in capturing the executive component of working memory (see Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundWorking memory, learning, and academic achievement.
Swanson, H. L., & Alloway, T. P. (2012) · APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues. · doi:10.1037/13273-012 · Cited by 118
Causes and constraints of the shift-to-easier-materials effect in the control of study
Dunlosky, J. T., & Thiede, K. W. (2004) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03195868 · Cited by 118
“Another possibility is suggested by the view that working memory is a joint vestige of shortterm memory plus controlled attention.4 For instance, Kane and Engle (2001) argue that high- and low-working memory-span individuals differ with respect to attention control processing “specifically in…”
BackgroundEmotional attention set-shifting and its relationship to anxiety and emotion regulation.
Johnson, D. R. (2009) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/a0017095 · Cited by 122
List-wide control is not entirely elusive: Evidence from picture–word Stroop
Bugg, J. M., & Chanani, S. (2011) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0112-y · Cited by 113
Anger as “seeing red”: Evidence for a perceptual association
Fetterman, A. K., Robinson, M. D., & Meier, B. P. (2012) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2012.673477 · Cited by 115
“Although Stroop-related facilitation effects have been observed, none of the relevant mechanisms proposed—inadvertent reading processes (Kane & Engle, 2003 ), convergence of sources of information (Melara & Algom, 2003 ), or lexicality costs (Brown, Gore, & Carr, 2002 ) can be viewed as relevant to our results.”
BackgroundBrewer, G. A., Knight, J. B., Marsh, R. L., & Nash Unsworth, A. (2010) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/mc.38.3.304 · Cited by 113
“In situations in which people need to maintain goals that are inconsistent with prepotent tendencies, working memory capacity becomes an important variable (Conway et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003; Unsworth et al., 2004).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe effects of acute stress on human prefrontal working memory systems
Porcelli, A. J., Cruz, D., Wenberg, K., Patterson, M. D., Biswal, B. B., & Bart Rypma, A. (2008) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.04.027 · Cited by 119
“It is possible that some differences are related to PFC-based executive-attentional capabilities [28], [54], [56], [63].”
Executive Functioning and Emotion Regulation in Children with and without ADHD
Groves, N. B., Wells, E. L., Soto, E. F., Marsh, C. L., Jaisle, E. M., Harvey, T. K., & Kofler, M. J. (2022) · Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology · doi:10.1007/s10802-021-00883-0 · Cited by 110
“A ratio of 80:20 go:no-go stimuli was selected to maximize prepotency (Kane & Engle, 2003; Unsworth & Engle, 2007).”
BackgroundCognitive flexibility in preschoolers: the role of representation activation and maintenance
Chevalier, N., & Blaye, A. (2008) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00679.x · Cited by 112
“Our claim is not that children fully forgot the relevant colour but instead failed at times to maintain it sufficiently active to base actions on it. Such maintenance failures are evidence of a goalneglect phenomenon, that is, disregard of task requirement despite knowing and understanding it (Duncan, Emslie, Williams…”
BackgroundCognitive control in context: Working memory capacity and proactive control
Redick, T. S. (2013) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.10.010 · Cited by 111
“Trial type frequencies were manipulated between subjects and kept constant within an individual to prevent possible task order effects that could complicate the interpretation of the results (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003; Unsworth et al., 2004).”
Test-retest reliability of a new executive function battery for use in early childhood
Willoughby, M. T., & Blair, C. (2011) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2011.554390 · Cited by 113
“This is a span-like measure that is based upon principles described by Engle, Kane, and collaborators (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
MethodGulbinaite, R., van Rijn, H., & Cohen, M. X. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00761 · Cited by 124
“For example, although congruency effects can be larger for low- compared to high-WMC individuals (e.g., Kane and Engle, 2003; Weldon et al., 2013), this effect seems to depend on the task and contextual factors such as the ratio of congruent and incongruent trials (Kane and Engle, 2003; Heitz and…”
BackgroundInfluentialEffect of Using a Treadmill Workstation on Performance of Simulated Office Work Tasks
John, D., Bassett, D. R., Thompson, D. L., Fairbrother, J. T., & Baldwin, D. R. (2009) · Journal of Physical Activity and Health · doi:10.1123/jpah.6.5.617 · Cited by 110
The Relation Between Attention and Memory
Cowan, N., Bao, C., Bishop-Chrzanowski, B. M., Costa, A. N., Greene, N. R., Guitard, D., Li, C., Musich, M. L., & Ünal, Z. E. (2023) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-040723-012736 · Cited by 124
“Kane & Engle (2003) showed that low-span individuals were slower to name the color but did not make more errors than high-span individuals.”
BackgroundThe relationship of working memory, inhibition, and response variability in child psychopathology
Verté, S., Geurts, H. M., Roeyers, H., Oosterlaan, J., & Sergeant, J. A. (2006) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2005.08.023 · Cited by 109
The utility of Stroop task switching as a marker for early-stage Alzheimer's disease.
Hutchison, K. A., Balota, D. A., & Duchek, J. M. (2010) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/a0018498 · Cited by 109
“Kane and Engle (2003) provided evidence for two separable control processes necessary in the Stroop task: goal maintenance”
Context-specific learning and control: The roles of awareness, task relevance, and relative salience
Crump, M. J. C., Vaquero, J. M. M., & Milliken, B. (2007) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2007.01.004 · Cited by 108
“Indeed, Kane and Engle (2003) demonstrate that individual differences in working memory capacity predict the extent to which increases in proportion congruent influence the size of the Stroop effect.”
Working memory capacity and sustained attention: A cognitive-energetic perspective.
Nash Unsworth, A., & Robison, M. K. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000712 · Cited by 122
Distribution of cognitive load in Web search
Jacek Gwizdka, A. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21385 · Cited by 130
“Total time on a task included the searcher’s bookmarking activity.”
BackgroundInfluentialInhibitory Processes in Young Children and Individual Variation in Short-Term Memory
Espy, K. A., & Bull, R. (2005) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2802_6 · Cited by 109
“These inhibitory task performance discrepancies among children of high and low spans are consistent with those observed by Engle and colleagues (Bleckley et al., 2003; Kane & Engle, 2000, 2002, 2003) in adults, using a similar design but a different span task by which to parse groups.”
MethodResultInfluentialCortical and subcortical contributions to context-control learning
Chiu, Y., & Egner, T. (2019) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.01.019 · Cited by 107
Expectations Do Not Alter Early Sensory Processing during Perceptual Decision-Making
Rungratsameetaweemana, N., Itthipuripat, S., Salazar, A., & Serences, J. T. (2018) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3638-17.2018 · Cited by 121
“…error detection, response inhibition, and working memory (D’Esposito et al., 1995; Carter et al., 1998; Curtis and Esposito, 2003; Kane and Engle, 2003; Ridderinkhof et al., 2004; Cavanagh et al., 2011, 2012; Itthipuripat et al., 2013b; Aron et al., 2004, 2014, Botvinick et al.,…”
BackgroundMethodFleming, K. A., Heintzelman, S. J., & Bartholow, B. D. (2016) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12163 · Cited by 100
“…is consistent with a view of inhibitory control as a by-product of goal maintenance (e.g., Chatham et al., 2012; Herd, Banich, & O'Reilly, 2006; Kane & Engle, 2003; Morton & Munakata, 2002; Munakata et al., 2011) and may help to explain why no inhibition task-specific variance is left over…”
Delayed match-to-sample in working memory: A BrainMap meta-analysis
Daniel, T. A., Katz, J. S., & Robinson, J. L. (2016) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2016.07.015 · Cited by 116
“…a diverse set of behavioral phenomenon (e.g., change-detection [Luck &Vogel, 1997], list memory [Rosen & Engle, 1998], prospective memory [Marsh & Hicks, 1998], and Stroop interference [Kane & Engle, 2003]), WM has been one of the more widely studied constructs in the area of cognitive psychology.”
BackgroundRegulating the Effects of Depletion Through Monitoring
Wan, E. W., & Sternthal, B. (2007) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167207306756 · Cited by 101
“Evidence for this view emerges in studies documenting goal neglect when individuals have a limited working-memory capacity (Kane & Engle, 2003) or are distracted by competing stimuli (De Jong, Berendsen, & Cools, 1999).”
BackgroundToward a Science of Effective Cognitive Training
Smid, C. R., Karbach, J., & Steinbeis, N. (2020) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721420951599 · Cited by 102
“These interindividual differences in training gains often show distinct patterns after different types of training, with compensation effects (larger gains in low performers) particularly emerging after process-based training targeting one or more basic cognitive resources (e.g., EFs) and magnification effects (larger…”
BackgroundInfluentialThe neural basis of sustained and transient attentional control in young adults with ADHD
Banich, M. T., Burgess, G. C., Depue, B. E., Ruzic, L., Bidwell, L. C., Hitt-Laustsen, S., Du, Y. P., & Willcutt, E. G. (2009) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.07.005 · Cited by 100
“Supporting this interpretation, the reduction was largest for the congruent condition , which provides the least support or reinforcement of the task-relevant (i.e., ink identification) process (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2010) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy001008 · Cited by 105
Low working memory capacity impedes both efficiency and learning of number transcoding in children
Camos, V. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.06.006 · Cited by 98
“Keywords: Working memory; Number transcoding; Procedural system; Individual differences”
BackgroundThe effect of non-visual working memory load on top-down modulation of visual processing
Rissman, J., Gazzaley, A. H., & D’Esposito, M. (2009) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.01.036 · Cited by 101
Reilly, D. S., Woollacott, M. H., van Donkelaar, P., & Saavedra, S. L. (2008) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.10.023 · Cited by 96
Working memory in Down syndrome: is there a dual task deficit?
Lanfranchi, S., Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S. E., & Vianello, R. (2011) · Journal of Intellectual Disability Research · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01444.x · Cited by 97
Stereotype threat and inflexible perseverance in problem solving
Carr, P. B., & Steele, C. M. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.003 · Cited by 96
Alkozei, A., Smith, R. S., Pisner, D., Vanuk, J. R., Berryhill, S. M., Fridman, A., Shane, B. R., Knight, S. A., & Killgore, W. D. S. (2016) · SLEEP · doi:10.5665/sleep.6090 · Cited by 100
Hartanto, A., & Yang, H. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000672 · Cited by 101
“…ar tic le is in te nd ed so le ly fo r th e pe rs on al us e of th e in di vi du al us er an d is no t to be di ss em in at ed br oa dl y. memory—although working memory is closely related to inhibitory control and goal maintenance processes (Engle, 2002; Kane & Engle, 2003; Meier et al., 2018).”
BackgroundMemory mechanisms supporting syntactic comprehension
Caplan, D. N., & Waters, G. S. (2013) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0369-9 · Cited by 98
Wilhelm, O., & Oberauer, K. (2006) · The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/09541440500215921 · Cited by 95
Remembering to prepare: The benefits (and costs) of high working memory capacity.
Richmond, L. L., Redick, T. S., & Braver, T. S. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000122 · Cited by 95
“The AY RT data in Experiments 1 and 2, as well as consistently finding a more liberal response bias following A cues, represent one of only a handful of demonstrations of the costs associated with higher WMC (Delaney & Sahakyan, 2007; Kane & Engle, 2003; Shipstead & Broadway, 2013).”
Sobel, K. V., Gerrie, M. P., Poole, B. J., & Kane, M. J. (2007) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03194109 · Cited by 94
“To further increase WMC contributions to search, we induced a habitual response as in Kane and Engle (2003), who tested for WMC differences in the Stroop task.”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationEffects of working memory capacity on mental set due to domain knowledge
Ricks, T. R., Turley-Ames, K. J., & Wiley, J. (2007) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03193615 · Cited by 95
“In terms of a contribution to the WMC literature, this finding lends support to the controlled attention perspective, which argues that one means by which working memory capacity affects cognitive performance is through the executive ability to direct or focus one’s attention ( Kane & Engle, 2003 ).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialUse it or lose it: examining preschoolers’ difficulty in maintaining and executing a goal
Marcovitch, S., Boseovski, J. J., & Knapp, R. J. (2007) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00611.x · Cited by 91
“Goal maintenance can be achieved by consistently reminding oneself of the goal state so that it can be executed under appropriate environmental conditions (cf. Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe two modes of an athlete: dual-process theories in the field of sport
Furley, P., Schweizer, G., & Bertrams, A. (2015) · International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2015.1022203 · Cited by 95
Khng, K. H., & Lee, K. L. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101356 · Cited by 90
“, working memory capacity, age & motivational context) [30,31,32,33,34].”
BackgroundPlaying a puzzle video game with changing requirements improves executive functions
Oei, A. C., & Patterson, M. D. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.046 · Cited by 105
Evidence for the sparing of reactive cognitive control with age.
Bugg, J. M. (2013) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/a0035270 · Cited by 97
Maternal depressive symptoms, mother-child interactions, and children’s executive function.
Gueron‐Sela, N., The Family Life Project Key Investigators, Camerota, M., Willoughby, M. T., Vernon‐Feagans, L., & Cox, M. J. (2017) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0000389 · Cited by 90
“This task was based upon principles described by Kane and Engle (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Why Most Studies of Individual Differences With Inhibition Tasks Are Bound To FailPreprint
Rouder, J. N., Kumar, A., & Haaf, J. M. (2019) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/3cjr5 · Cited by 89
“One way of increasing individual variability, from Engle and colleagues, is to dispense with contrasts and difference scores altogether (Draheim et al., 2019; Kane & Engle, 2003; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004).”
BackgroundMorrison, A. B., & Richmond, L. L. (2020) · Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-019-0201-4 · Cited by 87
“In addition, people with higher WMC estimates exhibit smaller Stroop interference effects (Kane & Engle, 2003), reduced interference from background noise (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001), and the tendency to deploy proactive cognitive control (Redick, 2014; Richmond, Redick, & Braver, 2015;…”
BackgroundMany Labs 3: Evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replicationPreprint
Ebersole, C. R., Atherton, O. E., Belanger, A. L., Skulborstad, H. M., Allen, J., Banks, J., Baranski, E. N., Bernstein, M. J., Bonfiglio, D. B. V., Boucher, L., et al. (2016) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/q4emc · Cited by 89
The scope and control of attention as separate aspects of working memory
Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., Hicks, K. L., & Engle, R. W. (2012) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2012.691519 · Cited by 89
Self-citationAge-related decline in cognitive control: the role of fluid intelligence and processing speed
Manard, M., Carabin, D., Jaspar, M., & Collette, F. (2014) · BMC Neuroscience · doi:10.1186/1471-2202-15-7 · Cited by 98
“Classically, this effect is investigated through paradigms varying the amount of interference within a task (for example; the Stroop task [3], the Eriksen flanker task [4], the Simon task [1,5,6] or the probe recency task [7]) and refers to the observation of smaller interference effects in lists of stimuli including…”
BackgroundThe Dual Mechanisms of Cognitive Control Project
Braver, T. S., Kizhner, A., Tang, R., Freund, M. C., & Etzel, J. A. (2021) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01768 · Cited by 103
“Consequently, the baseline condition utilizes high PC, as it produces robust Stroop interference and individual difference effects (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
MethodA goal activation approach to the study of executive function: An application to antisaccade tasks
Nieuwenhuis, S., Broerse, A., Nielen, M. M. A., & de Jong, R. (2004) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2003.12.002 · Cited by 89
“First, it has been demonstrated that increasing the relative frequency of demanding, noncorresponding trials in a mixed trial block decreases the magnitude of the Stroop effect (Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979; see also Kane & Engle, 2003 ), and even more so for older adults (West, 1999).”
BackgroundAttentional enhancement during multiple-object tracking
Drew, T. W., McCollough, A. W., Horowitz, T. S., & Vogel, E. K. (2009) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/pbr.16.2.411 · Cited by 84
Course-Choi, J., Saville, H., & Derakshan, N. (2016) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.11.002 · Cited by 96
Toward a taxonomy of attention shifting: Individual differences in fMRI during multiple shift types
WAGER, T. D., JONIDES, J., SMITH, E. E., & NICHOLS, T. E. (2005) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/cabn.5.2.127 · Cited by 86
“Mean RTs (in milliseconds) for correct trials in each condition were calculated for each participant after removing outliers greater than three standard deviations from the mean of the condition within participants ( Kane & Engle, 2003 ).”
MethodA latent variable approach to executive control in healthy ageing
Adrover‐Roig, D., Sesé, A., Barceló, F., & Pol, A. L. P. (2012) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2012.01.005 · Cited by 92
“Moreover, the maintenance of information in working memory is particularly important in the presence of interference (presumably represented by the Stroop Color-Word), which disrupts rapid retrieval of information (Engle & Kane, 2004; Kane & Engle, 2000, 2003).”
Event-Related Potential Measures of Visual Working Memory
Drew, T., McCollough, A. W., & Vogel, E. K. (2006) · Clinical EEG and Neuroscience · doi:10.1177/155005940603700405 · Cited by 88
Hannon, E. M., & Richards, A. (2010) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p6379 · Cited by 86
“Using a negative-priming Stroop task, we found that, while there were differences in reaction times between `incongruent' and `ignored repeated' conditions (which reliably measure inhibition), no differences between those who were subject to IB and those who were not were found.”
BackgroundDissociating Levels of Cognitive Control
Bugg, J. M. (2012) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721412453586 · Cited by 84
“2; e.g., Bugg & Chanani, 2011; Bugg, McDaniel, Scullin, & Braver, 2011; Kane & Engle, 2003; Lindsay & Jacoby, 1994; Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979; Logan, Zbrodoff, & Williamson, 1984; Lowe & Mitterer, 1982; West & Baylis, 1998).”
Age-related differences in inhibitory control in the early school years
Macdonald, J. A., Beauchamp, M. H., Crigan, J., & Anderson, P. J. (2013) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2013.822060 · Cited by 97
“Nevertheless, individual differences in working memory (i.e., high or low WM span) have been found to predict Stroop task performance (Kane & Engle, 2003), so if the goal is to isolate the role of inhibition, where possible, it is important to reduce working memory demands in tasks.”
BackgroundGoal Neglect and Working Memory Capacity in 4- to 6-Year-Old Children
Marcovitch, S., Boseovski, J. J., Knapp, R. J., & Kane, M. J. (2010) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01503.x · Cited by 84
“In their Stroop study with adults, Kane and Engle (2003) found that performance in a mostly redundant condition (i.e., with most color words presented in their matching hues) was related to individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC).”
BackgroundSelf-citationSelf-Control at High and Low Levels of Mental Construal
Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Duke, S. C. (2010) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550610385955 · Cited by 85
“Updating is thought to support delay of gratification, emotion reappraisal, and other forms of self-control that involve sustaining a goal-directed response in the presence of distractions or competing impulses (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003; Schmeichel, Volokhov, & Demaree, 2008).”
Lovallo, W. R., Yechiam, E., Sorocco, K. H., Vincent, A. S., & Collins, F. L. (2006) · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00089.x · Cited by 87
“The Stroop Color-Word Test is an ideal challenge to the executive processes of working memory because it requires attention to the correct characteristic of the stimulus and response conflict resolution at each item (Demakis, 2004; Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodSandrini, M., Rossini, P. M., & Miniussi, C. (2008) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.02.003 · Cited by 87
“Kane and Engle (2003) argue that the ability to control attention underlies the ability to both inhibit irrelevant processing and switch between competing tasks.”
Variation in strategy use across measures of verbal working memory
Morrison, A. B., Rosenbaum, G. M., Fair, D. A., & Chein, J. M. (2016) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-016-0608-9 · Cited by 87
“…span task), either an experimenter ensures that each successive item is presented immediately after responding to the equation is completed (Kane & Engle, 2003) or automated timing is tailored to an individual’s speed of solving a set of practiced mathematical operations (Unsworth et al.,…”
A temporal–contextual retrieval account of complex span: An analysis of errors☆
Nash Unsworth, A., & Engle, R. W. (2006) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.11.004 · Cited by 82
“These complex span tasks have also predicted performance on many measures of lower-order cognitive abilities such as attention control in tasks such as antisaccade (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004), and Stroop ( Kane & Engle, 2003; Long & Prat, 2002), as well as basic memory abi…”
BackgroundSelf-citationCognitive inhibition and working memory in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Engelhardt, P. E., Nigg, J. T., Carr, L. A., & Ferreira, F. (2008) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0012593 · Cited by 94
“…component of this task was based on a well-validated neuropsychological task designed to measure interference control (i.e., the Stroop task; see Kane & Engle, 2003 for a review of the relationship between errors and response latencies on the Stroop task compared with other measures of working…”
Animacy, perceptual load, and inattentional blindness
Calvillo, D. P., & Jackson, R. E. (2013) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0543-8 · Cited by 91
Number skills are maintained in healthy ageing
Cappelletti, M., Didino, D., Stoianov, I. P., & Zorzi, M. (2014) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.11.004 · Cited by 83
“This function, which is sensitive to age decline (Kane & Engle, 2003; May & Hasher, 1998), may be particularly relevant in the numerosity discrimination task.”
Aarts, E., Roelofs, A., & van Turennout, M. (2009) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.03.019 · Cited by 85
Camos, V., & Barrouillet, P. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00900 · Cited by 94
“Of course, working memory is important to maintain information in an active state and to solve the conflicts resulting from interference and activation of prepotent but inappropriate responses as Engle and Kane argue (e.g., Rosen and Engle, 1998; Kane and Engle, 2003; Unsworth et al., 2004; Bunting, 2006).”
BackgroundIndividual differences in the fan effect and working memory capacity
Bunting, M. F., Conway, A. R. A., & Heitz, R. P. (2004) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.007 · Cited by 81
“An attentional control view of working memory would make this prediction based on research suggesting that low spans are prone to interference from irrelevant episodes and spurious connections ( Kane & Engle, 2003; Lustig, May et al., 2001).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWorking memory capacity and inhibition: Cognitive and social consequences.
Redick, T. S., Heitz, R. P., & Engle, R. W. (2008) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/11587-007 · Cited by 81
Self-citationLeón‐Carrión, J., Damas-López, J., Martin‐Rodríguez, J. F., Domínguez-Roldán, J. M., Murillo-Cabezas, F., y Martín, J. M. B., & Domínguez-Morales, M. R. (2008) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.06.013 · Cited by 85
Ludwig, C., Borella, E., Tettamanti, M., & Ribaupierre, A. D. (2009) · Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics · doi:10.1016/j.archger.2009.09.040 · Cited by 80
Beyond perceptual load and dilution: a review of the role of working memory in selective attention
de Fockert, J. W. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00287 · Cited by 79
“…a standard Stroop task requiring naming of the ink color of printed letter strings (Stroop, 1935), interference effects produced when the letter string reads another color name are consistently greater in individuals with low, compared to those with high working memory span (Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundRajan, A., Siegel, S., Liu, Y., Bengson, J. J., Mangun, G. R., & Ding, M. (2018) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhy149 · Cited by 93
Short-Term Memory, Inhibition, and Attention in Developmental Stuttering: A Meta-Analysis
Ofoe, L. C., Anderson, J. D., & Ntourou, K. (2018) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2018_jslhr-s-17-0372 · Cited by 88
“The core EF components rely on an existing foundation of attentional networks, which generally permit one to maintain interest in and focus on a specific task or idea while also managing distractions (Baddeley, 2002; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundA critical review of research on executive functions in sport and exercise
Furley, P., Schütz, L.-M., & Wood, G. (2023) · International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2023.2217437 · Cited by 91
“For example, they suggest that it is necessary to further the understanding of the true relationship between training mechanisms and outcome variables, which is highly complicated, particularly due to the task-impurity problem in the measurement of EFs (Kane & Engle, 2003; Miyake & Friedman, 2012).”
Ståhl, T., van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2012) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0027678 · Cited by 79
Huang, L., Mo, L., & Li, Y. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/a0026314 · Cited by 76
“…Engle , Kane , and their colleagues argued that individual working memory capacity is strongly related with executive attention ( Kane & Engle , 2002 ; Engle , 2002 ; Engle & Kane , 2004 ; Kane , Bleckley , Conway , & Engle , 2001 ; Kane & Engle , 2003 ; Kane , Poole , Tuholski , & Engle , 2006 ) .”
BackgroundRevealing list-level control in the Stroop task by uncovering its benefits and a cost.
Bugg, J. M., McDaniel, M. A., Scullin, M. K., & Braver, T. S. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/a0024670 · Cited by 79
A Short Executive Function Training Program Improves Preschoolers’ Working Memory
Blakey, E., & Carroll, D. J. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01827 · Cited by 80
“…are considered distinct processes at both the behavioral and the neural level (Nigg, 2000; Verbruggen et al., 2004; Martin-Rhee and Bialystok, 2008; Groom and Cragg, 2015), and interference control is known to be important for working memory (Kane and Engle, 2003; Redick and Engle, 2006).”
BackgroundOh, S. J., Seo, S., Lee, J. H., Song, M. J., & Shin, M. (2017) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2016.1274373 · Cited by 78
“WM performance is closely linked to other executive-control functions, including selective attention and inhibitory control (Kane & Engle, 2003), sustained attention (Holmes et al., 2014), and nonverbal reasoning (Kane et al., 2004).”
BackgroundDevelopment of working memory in childhood
Cowan, N., & Alloway, T. (2008) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203934654-16 · Cited by 88
Cannon, R., Congedo, M., Lubar, J., & Hutchens, T. (2009) · International Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/00207450802480325 · Cited by 74
Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00360 · Cited by 76
“…with incongruent trials placing greater demands on attention and controlled processing, by, for example, necessitating both goal maintenance and competition resolution from competing stimulus dimensions (Kane and Engle, 2003); executive processes not required for performance on congruent trials.”
BackgroundInhibitory deficits in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in psychopathic offenders
Hoppenbrouwers, S. S., de Jesus, D. R., Stirpe, T., Fitzgerald, P. B., Voineskos, A. N., Schutter, D. J. L. G., & Daskalakis, Z. J. (2012) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.06.003 · Cited by 78
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
