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 301–400 of 1,005
Why many studies of individual differences with inhibition tasks may not localize correlations
Rouder, J., Kumar, A., & Haaf, J. M. (2023) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-023-02293-3 · Cited by 54
“Indeed, it seemed some twenty years ago that the same strategy would succeed in cognitive control (Kane and Engle, 2003; Miyake et al., 2000).”
BackgroundFocusing on Attention: The Effects of Working Memory Capacity and Load on Selective Attention
Ahmed, L., & de Fockert, J. W. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043101 · Cited by 87
“For instance, during the Stroop task, low WMC individuals are more prone to interference from the irrelevant attribute of the stimulus than those with high WMC [2].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialThe Working Memory Stroop Effect: When Internal Representations Clash With External Stimuli
Kiyonaga, A., & Egner, T. (2014) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797614536739 · Cited by 78
“The WM Stroop effect thus emulated the response-slowing patterns of the standard Stroop effect, while the accuracy pattern fit with dual-mechanism accounts of Stroop interference (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodAssessment of linguistic and verbal short-term memory components of language abilities in aphasia
Martin, N., Minkina, I., Kohen, F. P., & Kalinyak-Fliszar, M. (2018) · Journal of Neurolinguistics · doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.02.006 · Cited by 77
Rypma, B., Eldreth, D. A., & Rebbechi, D. (2007) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/s0010-9452(08)70446-5 · Cited by 77
Les fonctions exécutives chez l'enfant: Concepts et développement.
Chevalier, N. (2010) · Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · doi:10.1037/a0020031 · Cited by 128
Investigating the role of attentional resources in the irrelevant speech effect
Elliott, E. M., & Briganti, A. M. (2012) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.02.009 · Cited by 77
Beyond common resources: the cortical basis for resolving task interference
Hester, R., Murphy, K., & Garavan, H. (2004) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.05.024 · Cited by 78
“(Engle et al., 1999; Kane and Engle, 2003; Kane et al., 2001) argue that the ability to control attention underlies the ability to inhibit irrelevant processing and to switch between competing tasks.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialMiller, A. E., Watson, J. M., & Strayer, D. L. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0026595 · Cited by 74
“For example, Kane and Engle (2003) found individuals with lower WMC were more likely to lose cognitive set and produced more naming errors (i.e., word reading) in a high-congruency Stroop Task.”
MethodInfluentialStroop performance in pathological gamblers
Kertzman, S., Lowengrub, K., Aizer, A., Ben-Nahum, Z., Kotler, M., & Dannon, P. N. (2006) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2005.07.027 · Cited by 77
A sub-process view of working memory capacity: Evidence from effects of speech on prose memory
Sörqvist, P., Ljungberg, J. K., & Ljung, R. (2010) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211003601530 · Cited by 76
“In other words, differences in WMC do not merely reflect differences in attentional control (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003) or mental storage capacity (Cowan, 2005) or an inhibition mechanism (e.g., Lustig et al., 2008).”
BackgroundControllability and resource dependence in automatic evaluation
Klauer, K. C., & Teige‐Mocigemba, S. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.06.003 · Cited by 76
The Role of Speed in ADHD-Related Working Memory Deficits
Weigard, A. S., & Huang‐Pollock, C. L. (2016) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702616668320 · Cited by 83
“And WM capacity is strongly correlated with performance on tasks indexing the ability to effortfully control attention, such as the Stroop and antisaccade paradigms (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2002, 2003; Meier & Kane, 2013).”
BackgroundGollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0013 · Cited by 79
Multiple Concurrent Thoughts: The Meaning and Developmental Neuropsychology of Working Memory
Cowan, N. (2010) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/87565641.2010.494985 · Cited by 79
“Other research shows that individuals with low span on this complex type of task have difficulty maintaining a goal according to instructions that go against natural responses, such as looking away from an object that suddenly appears on the computer screen rather than toward it ( Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001…”
BackgroundEngagement States and Learning from Educational Games
Deater-Deckard, K. D., Chang, M., & Evans, M. A. (2013) · New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development · doi:10.1002/cad.20028 · Cited by 74
“We focus on volitional use of cognitive (attention, memory) and behavioral/motor states that stem from the executive attention and working memory systems and are activated via emotion through behavioral activation and inhibition (Gray, 2000; Kane & Engle, 2003; Posner & Rothbart, 2007).”
BackgroundGrandjean, J., D’Ostilio, K., Phillips, C. L. M., Balteau, E., Degueldre, C., Luxen, A., Maquet, P., Salmon, É., & Collette, F. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041513 · Cited by 73
“Classically, the proportion congruent effect is the observation of less interference and facilitation in lists of stimuli containing mainly incongruent items (low-proportion-congruent condition) than in lists containing mainly congruent trials (high-proportion-congruent condition; [16,17]).”
BackgroundSörqvist, P., Nöstl, A., & Halin, N. (2012) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0203-9 · Cited by 71
“In general, WMC reflects the ability to control attention, constrain attention to relevant information, and deliberately inhibit responses to irrelevant stimuli (Heitz & Engle, 2007; Kane & Engle, 2003; Redick & Engle, 2006; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004).”
BackgroundWhen simple things are meaningful: Working memory strength predicts children’s cognitive flexibility
Blackwell, K. A., Cepeda, N. J., & Munakata, Y. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.01.002 · Cited by 71
“Dissociations could reflect inhibitory problems at a more representational level (e.g., a difficulty inhibiting attention to the first dimension) (Kirkham & Diamond, 2003), but graded working memory is sufficient to account for such dissociations (Munakata, 1998; Morton & Munakata, 2002a).”
Keye, D., Wilhelm, O., Oberauer, K., & van Ravenzwaaij, D. (2008) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0188-9 · Cited by 71
“Kane and Engle (2003) showed that subjects low in WM (low spans) exhibited larger RT facilitation and committed more errors than high spans in a Stroop task.”
BackgroundWorking memory capacity and Stroop interference: Global versus local indices of executive control.
Meier, M. E., & Kane, M. J. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0029200 · Cited by 78
Self-citationWorking Memory Capacity in Hot and Cold Cognition
Nash Unsworth, A., Heitz, R. P., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511720413.003 · Cited by 70
“…Memory Capacity is important in situations requiring both rational or cold cognition such as selective attention and reasoning (Engle et al., 1999; Kane & Engle, 2003) and is also important under conditions of emotional or hot cognition, such as stress and depression (Arnett et al., 1999; Klein &…”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationThe effect of stimulus availability on task choice in voluntary task switching
Arrington, C. M. (2008) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/mc.36.5.991 · Cited by 71
“…degrees of external stimulus availability and individual differences in executive control processes, as measured by working memory span tasks (Kane & Engle, 2003) or the attention networks test (Fan, McCandliss, Sommer, Raz, & Posner, 2002), may provide insight into how internal and external…”
MethodGoal neglect and knowledge chunking in the construction of novel behaviour
Bhandari, A., & Duncan, J. (2013) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.013 · Cited by 70
“…of fluid intelligence, supporting the proposal that, at least in large part, fluid intelligence concerns the cognitive control functions of the frontal lobe (for related ideas see Duncan, Burgess, & Emslie, 1995; Kane & Engle, 2003; Marshalek et al., 1983; Oberauer, Süß, Wilhelm, & Wittman, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodWilloughby, M. T., Family Life Project Investigators, Pek, J., & Blair, C. B. (2013) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/a0031747 · Cited by 70
“This spanlike task is based upon principles described by Engle, Kane and collaborators (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Distinct cortical networks activated by auditory attention and working memory load
Huang, S., Seidman, L. J., Rossi, S., & Ahveninen, J. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.074 · Cited by 72
“One might thus hypothesize that auditory WM constitutes a combination of memory and controlled attention processes that share the same neural substrate (Cowan, 2001; Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundThe development of attention regulation in the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task
Somsen, R. J. M. (2007) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00613.x · Cited by 80
Experimental Studies on State Self-Objectification: A Review and an Integrative Process Model
Kahalon, R., Shnabel, N., & Becker, J. C. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01268 · Cited by 69
Frischkorn, G. T., Schubert, A., & Hagemann, D. (2019) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2019.05.003 · Cited by 77
Individual differences in susceptibility to inattentional blindness.
Seegmiller, J. K., Watson, J. M., & Strayer, D. L. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0022474 · Cited by 72
“…interference, including but not limited to dichotic listening, the antisaccade task, Stroop color naming, and associative false memory paradigms (see Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003; Watson, Bunting, Poole, & Conway, 2005, respectively).”
BackgroundInfluentialGoth-Owens, T. L., Martinez-Torteya, C., Martel, M. M., & Nigg, J. T. (2010) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2010.485126 · Cited by 69
“Detailed computation and neuroimaging analysis of this task suggests that the consistency of task demands when all color/word items are incongruent may reduce the role of executive function and emphasize the role of speed (Kane & Engle, 2003; Kerns et al., 2004).”
BackgroundThe artful dodger: Answering the wrong question the right way
Rogers, T., & Norton, M. I. (2011) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e620972012-153 · Cited by 70
Relations between key executive functions and aggression in childhood
Granvald, V., & Marciszko, C. (2015) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2015.1018152 · Cited by 77
“Further modifications included using congruent instead of neutral trials as a control condition and intermixing the trials in the two conditions, with that increasing the executive demands slightly (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
MethodTse, C., & Altarriba, J. (2012) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728912000077 · Cited by 68
“We adapted Balota and Faust’s (2001) attentional control framework (Figure 1; see also Kane & Engle, 2003, for a similar idea) that explains performance in selective attention tasks involving the processing of multiple stimuli in multiple dimensions.”
BackgroundMethodThomas, A. K., Bulevich, J. B., & Chan, J. C. K. (2010) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010.04.004 · Cited by 68
Dynamics of the attentional control of word retrieval: Analyses of response time distributions.
Roelofs, A. (2008) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.303 · Cited by 68
“Goal neglect may result in distractor effects that would not have been present if processing had been tightly focused on the goal and task demands (De Jong et al., 1999; Kane & Engle, 2003; West & Alain, 2000).”
BackgroundThe Influence of Slow-Paced Breathing on Executive Function
Laborde, S., Allen, M. S., Borges, U., Hosang, T. J., Furley, P., Mosley, E., & Dosseville, F. E. M. (2021) · Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1027/0269-8803/a000279 · Cited by 75
Energetic effects of stimulus intensity on prolonged simple reaction-time performance
Langner, R., Willmes, K., Chatterjee, A. K., Eickhoff, S. B., & Sturm, W. (2010) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-010-0275-6 · Cited by 68
“... of the decrease in self-control strength with TOT: On the one hand, reduced self-control strength presumably results in diminished goal maintenance, leading to “absent-mindedness.” Recent research indicates that goal maintenance may be especially challenged under “simple” task conditions without interference, conX…”
BackgroundRoelofs, A. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0018523 · Cited by 67
Cognitive Deficits in Methamphetamine Users: How Strong is The Evidence?
Proebstl, L., Kamp, F., Koller, G., & Soyka, M. (2018) · Pharmacopsychiatry · doi:10.1055/s-0043-123471 · Cited by 66
“In the Stroop Test, a commonly used attention test [56], both active and recently abstinent MA users showed deficits in attention control [57] and cognitive inhibition [58].”
MethodTask complexity, the cognition hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments
Baralt, M. (2010) · ProQuest Demo Repository · Cited by 66
The interaction between inhibitory control and corrective feedback timing
Yılmaz, Y., & Sağdıç, A. (2019) · ITL Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1075/itl.19010.yil · Cited by 65
Verwoerd, J., Wessel, I., & de Jong, P. J. (2008) · Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2008.08.002 · Cited by 65
“If so, individual differences in RT might reflect differences in goal neglect (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003) rather than inhibitory capacity.”
BackgroundInteraction Between the Development of Postural Control and the Executive Function of Attention
Reilly, D. S., van Donkelaar, P., Saavedra, S. L., & Woollacott, M. (2008) · Journal of Motor Behavior · doi:10.3200/jmbr.40.2.90-102 · Cited by 64
“Kane, Bleckley, Conway, and Engle (2001; Kane & Engle, 2003) demonstrated a strong link between the capacity of short-term memory and the efficiency of the executive function of attention.”
BackgroundWorking-Memory Capacity Limits in a Theoretical Context
Izawa, C., & Ohta, N. (2014) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410612717-12 · Cited by 65
Effects of working memory, attention, and expertise on pilots’ situation awareness
Çak, S., Say, B., & Mısırlısoy, M. (2019) · Cognition Technology & Work · doi:10.1007/s10111-019-00551-w · Cited by 65
Self-awareness Without Awareness? Implicit Self-focused Attention and Behavioral Self-regulation
Silvia, P. J., & Phillips, A. G. (2012) · Self and Identity · doi:10.1080/15298868.2011.639550 · Cited by 64
“Likewise, the effects of the explicit standards probably decayed due to goal neglect (Kane & Engle, 2003), the tendency for a task goal (in the present experiments, ‘‘be fast’’ or ‘‘be accurate’’) to slip from one’s mind as people become immersed in the rapid cognitive task.”
BackgroundKessler, Y., & Meiran, N. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.570 · Cited by 66
“This theory is in line with the claim that WM is a manifestation of controlled attention, serving to maintain active information and to resolve conflict and interference among memory objects (Engle & Kane, 2004; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
ResultKiefer, M., Ahlegian, M., & Spitzer, M. (2005) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/0894-4105.19.3.332 · Cited by 67
Sala, G., Aksayli, N. D., Tatlidil, K. S., Gondo, Y., & Gobet, F. (2019) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2019.101386 · Cited by 72
Functional Plasticity in Childhood Brain Disorders: When, What, How, and Whom to Assess
Dennis, M., Spiegler, B. J., Simić, N., Sinopoli, K. J., Wilkinson, A. A., Yeates, K. O., Taylor, H. G., Bigler, E. D., & Fletcher, J. M. (2014) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-014-9261-x · Cited by 72
“…important for working memory (Lavie et al. 2004; Sakai et al. 2002), while maintenance of relevant information is important for inhibitory control (Kane and Engle 2003); prospective memory difficulties are correlated with working memory and inhibitory control impairments (Kerns and Price 2001;…”
Why does working memory capacity predict RAPM performance? A possible role of distraction
Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2012) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2012.06.001 · Cited by 60
Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2011) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.577226 · Cited by 62
“Similar explanations could be applied to previous research with the Stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003 ) – poorer low-WMC performance could be due to failure to maintain the goal of naming the ink color (executive-attention) or inability to suppress the automatic word-reading response (inhibition).”
ResultSelf-citationJian-hua, Z., & Zhang, L. J. (2023) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101808 · Cited by 62
Different efficiencies of attentional orienting in different wandering minds
Hu, N., He, S., & Xu, B. (2012) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2011.12.007 · Cited by 65
Lisjak, M., Molden, D. C., & Lee, A. Y. (2012) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0027594 · Cited by 61
Physiological synchronization and entropy as measures of team cognitive load
DIAS, R. D., Zenati, M. A., Stevens, R. H., Gabany, J. M., & Yule, S. (2019) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103250 · Cited by 65
“WM limitations largely depend on the novelty of the obtained information, since novel data received from sensory memory impose a higher load and last for a shorter time in the WM compared to information retrieved from long-term memory [12].”
BackgroundWorking memory capacity, controlled attention and aiming performance under pressure
Wood, G., Vine, S. J., & Wilson, M. (2015) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-015-0673-x · Cited by 61
“Previous research has shown that a 75 % congruency rate is optimal for inducing maximum interference (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialThe contribution of working memory to fluid reasoning: Capacity, control, or both?
Chuderski, A., & Necka, E. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0028465 · Cited by 60
Hedge, C., Powell, G., Bompas, A., Vivian-Griffiths, S., & Sumner, P. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000164 · Cited by 67
Stroop proactive control and task conflict are modulated by concurrent working memory load
Kalanthroff, E., Avnit, A., Henik, A., Davelaar, E. J., & Usher, M. (2014) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0735-x · Cited by 60
“Low-operation-span participants have longer RTs in incongruent Stroop trials (Kane & Engle, 2003; Meier & Kane, 2012), suggesting that the higher the WM capacity, the better one can perform the goal-relevant selection in the Stroop task.”
BackgroundTruthiness and falsiness of trivia claims depend on judgmental contexts.
Newman, E. J., Garry, M., Unkelbach, C., Bernstein, D. M., Lindsay, D. S., & Nash, R. A. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000099 · Cited by 69
Effects of dopamine‐related gene–gene interactions on working memory component processes
Stelzel, C., Basten, U., Montag, C., Reuter, M., & Fiebach, C. J. (2009) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06647.x · Cited by 61
“…have demonstrated that individuals with high working memory capacity perform better than individuals with low working memory capacity on a range of tasks involving the inhibition of irrelevant information like in the Stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003) or dichotic listening (Conway et al., 2001).”
BackgroundElliott, E. M., & Cowan, N. (2005) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03195333 · Cited by 60
“…and therefore would correlate more highly with WM procedures in which processing and storage are combined (e.g., reading span: Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; operation span: Turner & Engle, 1989), given that these tasks seem to depend on how well attention can be controlled (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundNash Unsworth, A., Spillers, G. J., & Brewer, G. A. (2009) · Psychology science · Cited by 60
Tiego, J., Bellgrove, M. A., Whittle, S., Pantelis, C., & Testa, R. (2019) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.12918 · Cited by 68
Working memory training improves visual short-term memory capacity
Schwarb, H., Nail, J., & Schumacher, E. H. (2016) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-015-0648-y · Cited by 55
Application of a cognitive neuroscience perspective of cognitive control to late-life anxiety
Beaudreau, S. A., MacKay-Brandt, A., & Reynolds, J. (2013) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.03.006 · Cited by 62
“Two modifications to the standard Stroop task, the switching Stroop (Eppinger, Kray, Mecklinger, & Oliver, 2007) and a modified Stroop (25% incongruent trials, 75% congruent trials: Kane & Engle, 2003) emphasize flexibility or goal maintenance and are also highly applicable to this research.”
MethodDuchek, J. M., Balota, D. A., Thomas, J., Snyder, A. Z., Rich, P. R., Benzinger, T. L. S., Fagan, A. M., Holtzman, D. M., Morris, J. C., & Ances, B. M. (2013) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/a0033402 · Cited by 59
“The attentional control system needs to maintain the goals of a task and control competing pathways (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003; Shallice & Burgess, 1996).”
BackgroundCastel, A. D., Lee, S. S., Humphreys, K. L., & Moore, A. N. (2010) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/a0020298 · Cited by 67
“This may also be related to impairments in goal maintenance (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundSchleepen, T. M. J., & Jonkman, L. M. (2009) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/87565640903325733 · Cited by 66
“This has been demonstrated for adults (Kane & Engle, 2003) as well as children .”
Intelligence 2.0: Reestablishing a Research Program on g in I–O Psychology
Scherbaum, C. A., Goldstein, H. W., Yusko, K. P., Ryan, R., & Hanges, P. J. (2012) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01419.x · Cited by 64
“Do we view these concepts using the latest research findings on them (e.g., Ackerman et al., 2002; Kane & Engle, 2003)?”
BackgroundMethodRole of cognitive control in language deficits in different types of aphasia
Kuzmina, E., & Weekes, B. (2016) · Aphasiology · doi:10.1080/02687038.2016.1263383 · Cited by 59
“…in a range of cognitive processes including working memory (Grandjean & Collette, 2011; Jonides, Smith, Marshuetz, Koeppe, & ReuterLorenz, 1998; Kane & Engle, 2003; Zacks & Hasher, 1994), semantic short-term memory (Allen, Martin, & Martin, 2012; Hamilton & Martin, 2007; Hoffman, Jefferies,…”
Smith, R. S., Lane, R. D., Alkozei, A., Bao, J., Smith, C., Sanova, A., Nettles, M., & Killgore, W. D. S. (2017) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsx011 · Cited by 61
“Individual differences in the effectiveness of these top-down modulation processes are also thought to explain the correlation between WM capacity and intelligence mentioned above (Engle, 2002; Kane and Engle, 2003; McVay and Kane, 2012).”
BackgroundDevelopment of Executive Function across the Life Span
Jacques, S., & Marcovitch, S. (2010) · The Handbook of Life‐Span Development · doi:10.1002/9780470880166.hlsd001013 · Cited by 59
Working memory capacity and intra-individual variability of proactive control
Wiemers, E. A., & Redick, T. S. (2018) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.11.002 · Cited by 56
“Compared to high-WMC individuals, low-WMC individuals are more prone to interference in Stroop tasks (Kane & Engle, 2003; Long & Prat, 2002; Unsworth, Redick, Spillers, & Brewer, 2012), they are less accurate and make slower saccades on anti-saccade tasks (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001;…”
BackgroundIndividual differences in response conflict adaptations
Keye, D., Wilhelm, O., Oberauer, K., & Stürmer, B. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00947 · Cited by 61
“Taking an individual-differences perspective, Kane and Engle (2003) argued that the ability to inhibit irrelevant information reflects working memory capacity (WMC).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialDiestel, S., & Schmidt, K. (2011) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0022934 · Cited by 64
“…support for this argument is provided by McVay and Kane (2009) who reported that persons with a low resource capacity produce more mistakes and show more control deficits in tasks which require self-regulatory efforts as compared to persons with a higher resource (see also Kane & Engle, 2003).”
MethodSwitch and maintenance of task set in schizophrenia
Kieffaber, P. D., Kappenman, E. S., Bodkins, M., Shekhar, A., O’Donnell, B. F., & Hetrick, W. P. (2006) · Schizophrenia Research · doi:10.1016/j.schres.2006.01.022 · Cited by 58
“Performance on the Stroop Color-Word Test (Smith et al., 1998) is commonly considered to index task set maintenance because it yields indices of interference and facilitation via performance on incongruent and congruent (relative to neutral) trials (Kane and Engle, 2003; Pollux and Robertson, 2002).”
BackgroundMethodStrategy mediation in working memory training in younger and older adults
Forsberg, A., Fellman, D., Laine, M., Johnson, W., & Logie, R. H. (2020) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/1747021820915107 · Cited by 62
The effects of age and task context on Stroop task performance
Mutter, S. A., Naylor, J. C., & Patterson, E. R. (2005) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03193068 · Cited by 58
“…maintain activation of task-relevant goals and information, to suppress or prevent entry of task-irrelevant information, to recognize and resolve conflicts between competing sources of information, and to monitor errors (e.g., Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Kane & Engle, 2003; Shallice & Burgess, 1993).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialBringas-Vega, M. L., Zaldívar, M., Rojas, P. A., Martinez-Montes, K., Chongo, D. M., Ortega, M. A., Galvizu, R., Pérez, A. E. P., Morales, L. M., Maragoto, C., et al. (2015) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2015.00427 · Cited by 66
“…are particularly associated with cognitive functions (attention, working memory) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is activated during tasks requiring executive function (Kane and Engle, 2003), e.g., regulation of encoding, strategy selection, and manipulation and retrieval of information.”
BackgroundFarrington, J. (2011) · Performance Improvement Quarterly · doi:10.1002/piq.20099 · Cited by 71
Dissociable mechanisms underlying individual differences in visual working memory capacity
Gulbinaite, R., Johnson, A., de Jong, R., Morey, C. C., & van Rijn, H. (2014) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.060 · Cited by 61
“…individual strategic differences not only clarify the mechanisms behind more proficient attentional control often exhibited by high-WMC individuals (Kane and Engle, 2003; Vogel and Machizawa, 2004; Vogel et al., 2005), but also suggest an explanation for the weak or non-existent relationship…”
BackgroundInfluentialStrategy and processing speed eclipse individual differences in control ability in conflict tasks.
Hedge, C., Powell, G., Bompas, A., & Sumner, P. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0001028 · Cited by 68
“…converge with evidence from factor analytic studies that performance in inhibition tasks can be (at least partly) accounted for by processing speed (Jewsbury et al., 2016; Rey-Mermet, Gade, Souza, et al., 2019) or goal maintenance and implementation (Friedman & Miyake, 2017; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Jostmann, N. B., & Koole, S. L. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167206292595 · Cited by 57
“Accordingly, a person’s working memory capacity may be reflected in her or his ability to maintain explicit representations of intentions (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundCue Utilization and Cognitive Load in Novel Task Performance
Brouwers, S., Wiggins, M. W., Helton, W. S., O’Hare, D., & Griffin, B. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00435 · Cited by 61
“Cognitive ability encompasses constructs that include processing speed and working memory capacity (Conway et al., 2002) that can influence performance in attention-demanding tasks (Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundComponents of working memory and visual selective attention.
Burnham, B. R., Sabia, M., & Langan, C. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/a0033753 · Cited by 56
“Similarly, Kane and Engle (2003) found that low WMC subjects were less accurate than high WMC subjects on incongruent Stroop color-word trials with a high proportion of congruent trials.”
BackgroundProactive control of implicit bias: A theoretical model and implications for behavior change.
Amodio, D. M., & Swencionis, J. K. (2018) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspi0000128 · Cited by 67
A neuro-cognitive process model of emotional intelligence
Smith, R. S., Killgore, W. D. S., Alkozei, A., & Lane, R. D. (2018) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.10.012 · Cited by 73
The artful dodger: Answering the wrong question the right way.
Rogers, T., & Norton, M. I. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/a0023439 · Cited by 59
Peverly, S. T., & Sumowski, J. F. (2011) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1802 · Cited by 55
Olsen, M. R. (2018) · Animal Cognition · doi:10.1007/s10071-018-1162-6 · Cited by 56
Johnson, D. R., & Gronlund, S. D. (2008) · Anxiety Stress & Coping · doi:10.1080/10615800802291277 · Cited by 55
“Those higher in WM capacity demonstrate superior inhibition ability (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003), switching ability (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004), and updating ability (Oberauer, 2005).”
BackgroundDunčko, R., Makatsori, A., Ficková, E., Selko, D., & Ježová, D. (2006) · Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2006.04.002 · Cited by 55
Dubert, C. J., Schumacher, A. M., Locker, L., Gutierrez, A. P., & Barnes, V. A. (2016) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-016-0544-6 · Cited by 68
Kim, H. M. (2006) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.534 · Cited by 57
The next trial will be conflicting! Effects of explicit congruency pre-cues on cognitive control
Bugg, J. M., & Smallwood, A. (2014) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0638-5 · Cited by 58
“When conflict is frequent, as in a mostly incongruent list, there is less interference than when it is rare, as in a mostly congruent list (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003; Lindsay & Jacoby, 1994; Logan, 1980; Logan, Zbrodoff, & Williamson, 1984; Lowe & Mitterer, 1982; West & Baylis, 1998; see also…”
BackgroundKelly, C. A. M., Hester, R., Foxe, J. J., Shpaner, M., & Garavan, H. (2006) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.008 · Cited by 54
“…control, such as the Stroop, antisaccade and dichotic listening tasks, or mnemonic tasks involving interference, have been observed to correlate with an individual's WM capacity (Bunting et al., 2004; Conway et al., 2001; Kane and Engle, 2000, 2003; Kane et al., 2001; Unsworth et al., 2004).”
BackgroundHahn, E. A., & Lachman, M. E. (2015) · Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition · doi:10.1080/13825585.2014.888391 · Cited by 54
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
