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 401–500 of 1,005
Garcia, J. A., Schoene, D., Lord, S. R., Delbaere, K., Valenzuela, T., & Navarro, K. F. (2016) · Games for Health Journal · doi:10.1089/g4h.2016.0070 · Cited by 54
“28 This test requires participants to state a color under three conditions, while suppressing habitual responses related to the conditions.”
Does the compatibility effect in the race Implicit Association Test reflect familiarity or affect?
Kinoshita, S., & Peek-O’Leary, M. (2005) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03193786 · Cited by 54
Working memory and counterexample retrieval for causal conditionals
Neys, W. D., Schaeken, W., & d’Ydewalle, G. (2005) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546780442000105 · Cited by 53
“These cut-off values are similar to the typical Ospan-distribution quartile cut-offs across many studies (e.g., Kane et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2000, 2003).”
MethodMindfulness changes construal level: An experimental investigation.
Chan, E. Y., & Wang, Y. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000654 · Cited by 54
Task-evoked pupillary responses track effort exertion: Evidence from task-switching
Castanheira, K. D. S., LoParco, S., & Otto, A. R. (2020) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-020-00843-z · Cited by 61
Executive functions and writing skills in children with and without ADHD.
Soto, E. F., Irwin, L. N., Chan, E. S. M., Spiegel, J. A., & Kofler, M. J. (2021) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/neu0000769 · Cited by 68
de Fockert, J. W., & Bremner, A. J. (2011) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.016 · Cited by 54
The effect of dual task demands and proficiency on second language speech production
Declerck, M., & Kormos, J. (2012) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728911000629 · Cited by 53
“The central executive is also responsible for regulating interference effects between competing stimuli (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundPisapia, N. D., Turatto, M., Lin, P., Jovicich, J., & Caramazza, A. (2011) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr146 · Cited by 56
Marcusson‐Clavertz, D., Cardeña, E., & Terhune, D. B. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000180 · Cited by 57
“…been found when assessing the relations between mind wandering and working memory—a set of cognitive systems that temporarily store and operate on information necessary for complex cognitive tasks and which are thought to be essential to executive functioning (Baddeley, 1992; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodA Working Memory System With Distributed Executive Control
Vandierendonck, A. (2016) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691615596790 · Cited by 57
“Similarly, subjects with a low WM capacity tend to perform more poorly on attention tasks than subjects with a high WM capacity (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003; Kane, Poole, Tuholski, & Engle, 2006; Poole & Kane, 2009).”
BackgroundReissland, J., & Manzey, D. (2016) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.04.010 · Cited by 55
“Specifically, it has been found that individuals with higher working memory capacity are more resilient towards proactive interference effects in memory and are better able to solve conflicts between competing responses (Kane & Engle, 2000, 2003).”
BackgroundAcute Exercise and Neurocognitive Development in Preadolescents and Young Adults: An ERP Study
Chu, C., Kramer, A. F., Song, T., Wu, C., Hung, T., & Chang, Y. (2017) · Neural Plasticity · doi:10.1155/2017/2631909 · Cited by 55
“, age, body mass index, and education level) and working memory, which may influence performance on the Stroop test, were assessed [57].”
MethodDissociative style and individual differences in verbal working memory span
de Ruiter, M. B., Phaf, R. H., Elzinga, B. M., & Dyck, R. V. (2004) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2004.08.002 · Cited by 53
Gerrie, M. P., & Garry, M. (2007) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658210701391634 · Cited by 51
“Specifically, our results add to those showing that people with high WMC ward off distraction by controlling their attention (Conway et al., 2001; Engle, 2002; Engle & Kane, 2004; Hester & Garavan, 2005; Kane et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2000, 2003).”
BackgroundResultThe Many Facets of Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity
Nash Unsworth, A. (2016) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2016.03.001 · Cited by 56
Schweizer, S., & Dalgleish, T. (2015) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/emo0000072 · Cited by 61
Connectome-based models predict attentional control in aging adults
Fountain‐Zaragoza, S., Samimy, S., Rosenberg, M. D., & Prakash, R. S. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.074 · Cited by 55
“, 2011; Hutchison, 2011) and that the mostly congruent block accentuates differences in performance between high and lowworkingmemory capacity individuals (Hutchison, 2011; Kane and Engle, 2003).”
Tharp, I. J., & Pickering, A. D. (2010) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2010.10.010 · Cited by 58
Bezdíček, O., Štěpánková, H., Nováková, L. M., & Kopeček, M. (2015) · Aging Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1007/s40520-015-0413-5 · Cited by 51
“Especially the subtests TMT-B and PST-C are considered strongly driven by executive functions, engaging especially set shifting and inhibition [43, 44].”
BackgroundIndividual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and Temporal Discrimination
Broadway, J. M., & Engle, R. W. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025422 · Cited by 52
“In contrast, individual differences in WMC are not often associated with performance in tasks where the more automatic response is instead the correct one: such as looking toward a sudden-onset stimulus in a prosaccade task or naming the ink-color of a ‘‘congruent’’ color-word in a Stroop task [1,6,7].”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe role of working memory in the metaphor interference effect
Pierce, R. S., MacLaren, R., & Chiappe, D. L. (2010) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/pbr.17.3.400 · Cited by 51
Context Processing and Cognitive Control in Children and Young Adults
Lorsbach, T. C., & Reimer, J. F. (2008) · The Journal of Genetic Psychology · doi:10.3200/gntp.169.1.34-50 · Cited by 51
Broadway, J. M., & Engle, R. W. (2011) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.008 · Cited by 51
Self-citationSędek, G., & von Hecker, U. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.237 · Cited by 50
“Engle and coworkers argued that the reason why a working memory measure such as OSPAN correlates with higher order cognitive functions is not individual differences in the storage component but individual differences in the central executive component—what they call a domain-unspecific executive attention component (C…”
BackgroundA Strategy‐Based Interpretation of Stroop
Lovett, M. C. (2005) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_24 · Cited by 51
Minamoto, T., Osaka, M., & Osaka, N. (2010) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2010.03.088 · Cited by 52
“Cumulative studies on individual differences ofWMCemployed OST as the index of WMC and showed a difference in several aspects of executive control between high and lowWMCgroups (Heitz and Engle, 2007; Kane and Engle, 2003; Unsworth et al., 2004), supporting the validity of OST as an index of WMC.”
ResultConstantinidou, F., Zaganas, I. V., Papastefanakis, E., Kasselimis, D. S., Nidos, A., & Simos, P. G. (2014) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617714000678 · Cited by 51
“The control of additional working memory components is believed to be exerted by specific executive functions (Salthouse, 2005), such as those exemplified by dual processing, set shifting, and inhibition tasks (Colflesh & Conway, 2007; Conway et al., 2005; Kane & Engle, 2002, 2003).”
BackgroundDoes Strategy Training Reduce Age-Related Deficits in Working Memory?
Bailey, H. R., Dunlosky, J., & Hertzog, C. (2014) · Gerontology · doi:10.1159/000356699 · Cited by 49
Automatic imitation is automatic, but less so for narcissists
Hogeveen, J., & Obhi, S. S. (2012) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3339-6 · Cited by 51
“%) was less than half the size of a similar comparison from the word stroop literature (Tzelgov et al. 1992, predict incongruence interference: 117 ms versus predict congruence interference: 244 ms = 52.05 % change; for a similar effect, see Kane and Engle 2003).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialThe scope and control of attention: Sources of variance in working memory capacity
Chow, M., & Conway, A. R. A. (2015) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0496-9 · Cited by 53
Effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance by United States Air Force pilots.
Lopez, N., Previc, F. H., FISCHER, J. R., Heitz, R. P., & Engle, R. W. (2011) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2011.10.002 · Cited by 49
Self-citationAttention control: The missing link between sensory discrimination and intelligence
Tsukahara, J. S., Harrison, T. L., Draheim, C., Martin, J. D., & Engle, R. W. (2020) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-020-02044-9 · Cited by 52
Self-citationThe L2 status factor hypothesis revisited
Bardel, C., & Sánchez, L. (2017) · Bilingual processing and acquisition · doi:10.1075/bpa.5.05bar · Cited by 53
Stress reduces attention to irrelevant information: Evidence from the Stroop task
Booth, R. W., & Sharma, D. (2009) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/s11031-009-9141-5 · Cited by 49
“Scores ranged between two and 32 (M = 14.96, SD = 7.78), and fit the commonly-found distribution for the task ( Kane and Engle 2003 ).”
BackgroundInfluentialGoo, J. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00573.x · Cited by 48
Executive functions and working memory behaviours in children with a poor working memory
Clair‐Thompson, H. S. (2011) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.02.008 · Cited by 51
Cognitive trait anxiety, stress and effort interact to predict inhibitory control
Edwards, M. S., Edwards, E. J., & Lyvers, M. (2016) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2016.1152232 · Cited by 49
“…be an important moderator of performance on inhibitory control tasks (e.g. antisaccade and Stroop) such that individuals lower in working memory capacity perform more poorly on tasks requiring a specific inhibitory response in the presence of threat (e.g. Engle & Kane, 2004; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundKleider‐Offutt, H. M., Clevinger, A. M., & Bond, A. D. (2016) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.04.008 · Cited by 48
Jaiswal, S., Tsai, S., Juan, C.-H., Muggleton, N. G., & Liang, W. (2019) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsz038 · Cited by 50
“It has been also demonstrated that individual differences in WMC are predictive of levels of Stroop interference (Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundÖzer, D., & Göksun, T. (2019) · Language Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2019.1703016 · Cited by 47
Auditory word recognition across the lifespan
Blumenfeld, H. K., Schroeder, S. R., Bobb, S. C., Freeman, M. R., & Marian, V. (2016) · Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism · doi:10.1075/lab.14030.blu · Cited by 48
“…Stroop task (Figure 2) involves conflict monitoring, attention allocation and competition resolution via inhibition (Donohue et al., 2012; Kane & Engle, 2003; Kornblum, 1994; Liu, Banich, Jacobson, & Tanabe, 2004), processes that have been shown to be involved in younger bilinguals’…”
Hasshim, N., & Parris, B. A. (2015) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-015-0971-9 · Cited by 48
“MacLeod (1998) suggested that the effect of facilitation could be produced by inadvertent reading, so that some responses were made via the reading of the word, resulting in faster responses to such trials (see also Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundMcVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2010) · Plenum series on human exceptionality · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1210-7_19 · Cited by 53
“Kane and Engle (2003) found that low-congruent conditions produced modest WMC-related differences in response time (RT) interference, but not in errors, with lower-WMC subjects naming colors on incongruent trials a bit more slowly than higher-WMC subjects.”
BackgroundResultSelf-citationDissociation: Cognitive Capacity or Dysfunction?
de Ruiter, M. B., Elzinga, B. M., & Phaf, R. H. (2006) · Journal of Trauma & Dissociation · doi:10.1300/j229v07n04_07 · Cited by 48
Cognitive Load Affects Speech Motor Performance Differently in Older and Younger Adults
MacPherson, M. K. (2019) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2018_jslhr-s-17-0222 · Cited by 54
Erickson, M. A. (2008) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/mc.36.4.749 · Cited by 48
“... & Green, 1986), learning computer programming (Shute, 1991), Raven’s advanced progressive matrices (Conway, Cowan, Bunting, Therriault, & Minkoff, 2002; Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999) and verbal and quantitative SAT scores (Turner & Engle, 1989), and low-level attentional tasks, such as dichotic listen…”
From Control to Chaos: Visual-Cognitive Progression During Recovery From ACL Reconstruction
Chaput, M., Simon, J. E., Taberner, M., & Grooms, D. R. (2024) · Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12443 · Cited by 46
Doolittle, P. E., & Mariano, G. J. (2008) · Journal of educational multimedia and hypermedia · Cited by 46
Expectations and experience: Dissociable bases for cognitive control?
Bugg, J. M., Diede, N. T., Cohen‐Shikora, E. R., & Selmeczy, D. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000106 · Cited by 48
“Some past studies have demonstrated individual differences in Stroop interference that are selective to the MC condition, such as those related to working memory capacity (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Vanderhasselt, M., Brunoni, A. R., Loeys, T., Boggio, P. S., & Raedt, R. D. (2013) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.08.011 · Cited by 48
“In fact, it has already been shown that increased WM performance relates to decreased mind wandering during daily life (e.g., Kane et al., 2007; McVay & Kane, 2010), and even predicts the regulation of thought and behavior (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundWorking memory demands modulate cognitive control in the Stroop paradigm
Soutschek, A., Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2012) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-012-0429-9 · Cited by 45
A Working Memory Test Battery: Java-Based Collection of Seven Working Memory Tasks
Stone, J. M., & Towse, J. N. (2015) · Journal of Open Research Software · doi:10.5334/jors.br · Cited by 45
“…intelligence (Conway, Cowan, Bunting, Therriault, & Minkoff, 2002), arithmetic (McLean & Hitch, 1999), the ability to prevent mind wandering during tasks requiring focus (Kane et al., 2007), executive attention (Kane & Engle, 2003), general learning disabilities (Alloway, 2009), and many more.”
van Heuven, W. J. B., Conklin, K., Coderre, E. L., Guo, T., & Dijkstra, T. (2011) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00374 · Cited by 46
“Language non-selective access implies that word representations from both languages are active during processing, even when only one language is relevant to the situation or task at hand.”
BackgroundRole of executive attention in consumer learning with background music
Kang, E., & Lakshmanan, A. (2016) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2016.03.003 · Cited by 46
“A more recent account of working memory (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Cowan, 1995; Kane & Engle, 2003) views working memory as a compound of cognitive processes driven by the ability to direct attention to task-relevant stimuli and suppress attention to taskirrelevant stimuli.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-affirmation improves performance on tasks related to executive functioning
Harris, P. S., Harris, P. R., & Miles, E. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.011 · Cited by 54
“…improves performance on tasks related to executive functioning Philine S. Harris ⁎, Peter R. Harris, Eleanor Miles School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Falmer BN1 9QH, United Kingdom H I G H L I G H T S • We assessed performance on executive functioning tasks following self-affirmation.”
BackgroundMethodExplaining the SPoARC and SNARC effects with knowledge structures: An expertise account
Guida, A., & Campitelli, G. (2019) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-019-01582-0 · Cited by 51
Perri, R. L. (2019) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2019.112243 · Cited by 46
The place-value of a digit in multi-digit numbers is processed automatically.
Kallai, A. Y., & Tzelgov, J. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0027635 · Cited by 47
Smolker, H. R., Wang, K., Luciana, M. M., Bjork, J. M., González, R., Barch, D. M., McGlade, E., Kaiser, R. H., Friedman, N. P., Hewitt, J. K., et al. (2021) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2021.101054 · Cited by 50
Current evidence does not support the claims made for CogMed working memory training.
Hulme, C., & Melby‐Lervåg, M. (2012) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.06.006 · Cited by 56
Costs of switching auditory spatial attention in following conversational turn-taking
Lin, G., & Carlile, S. (2015) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2015.00124 · Cited by 45
“Studies in the visual domain (Kane and Engle, 2003; Caparos and Linnell, 2010; Ahmed and de Fockert, 2012) and the auditory domain (Conway et al., 2001; Dalton et al., 2009) have shown that working memory and processing load affect the spatial window of attention.”
BackgroundVeling, H., & Aarts, H. (2010) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/s11031-010-9160-2 · Cited by 45
“Importantly, this Stroop interference effect is generally viewed as the result of two independent mechanisms (e.g., De Jong et al. 1999; Kane and Engle 2003; MacDonald et al. 2000).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialInfluence of Slow-Paced Breathing on Inhibition After Physical Exertion
Laborde, S., Lentes, T., Hosang, T. J., Borges, U., Mosley, E., & Dosseville, F. E. M. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01923 · Cited by 49
Attention control and the antisaccade task: A response time distribution analysis
Nash Unsworth, A., Spillers, G. J., Brewer, G. A., & McMillan, B. D. (2011) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.004 · Cited by 45
Working Memory Capacity and Self‐Regulation
Ilkowska, M., & Engle, R. W. (2010) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781444318111.ch12 · Cited by 44
Self-citationSwanson, H. L. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01099 · Cited by 44
On interpreters’ working memory and executive control
Hiltunen, S., Pääkkönen, R., Vik, G.-V., & Krause, C. M. (2014) · International Journal of Bilingualism · doi:10.1177/1367006914554406 · Cited by 49
“…memory tests (e.g. digit span with serial recall, reading span, and free recall), and tests measuring executive control, such as the Stroop test (Kane & Engle, 2003) and cocktail-party dichotic listening (see e.g. Table 4 in Unsworth & Engle, 2007).3 Individual differences have been found in…”
MethodJob engagement and work outcomes in a cognitively demanding context
Lauring, J., & Selmer, J. (2015) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/pr-11-2013-0216 · Cited by 50
“Dealing with a foreign culture in a foreign or second language can be argued to be a complex endeavor involving substantial searching and processing of information to gain knowledge of the role of contextual factors that may be relevant in a given situation (cf. Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundFiori, M., & Antonakis, J. (2012) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2012.02.004 · Cited by 54
Atalay, N. B., & Mısırlısoy, M. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0028458 · Cited by 44
Reduced specificity of emotional autobiographical memories following self-regulation depletion.
Doost, H. T. N., Dalgleish, T., & Golden, A.-M. J. (2008) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/a0013507 · Cited by 44
“lower in WMC experience more interference ( Kane & Engle, 2003 ).”
BackgroundVega, B. R., Llorente, J. M., Bayón, C., Cebolla, S., Mira, J., Valverde, C., & Fernández-Liria, A. (2013) · Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1080/10503307.2013.838651 · Cited by 56
“As Kane and Engle (2003) point out, Stroop interference is determined jointly by two mechanisms: A responsecompetition mechanism reflected in the regular shift of the latency distribution between incongruent and neutral trials, and a goal-maintenance mechanism reflected in error rates and also…”
BackgroundSemantic and Syntactic Interference in Sentence Comprehension: A Comparison of Working Memory Models
Tan, Y., Martin, R. C., & Dyke, J. A. V. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00198 · Cited by 44
“This pattern may be attributed to the attentional control component (i.e., interference resolution ability in the Stroop task), which is more prominent in complex span measures than in simple span measures (Engle, 2002; Kane and Engle, 2003; Engle and Kane, 2004; Unsworth et al., 2009).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialLinking mind wandering tendency to risky driving in young male drivers
Albert, D. A., Ouimet, M. C., Jarret, J., Cloutier, M., Paquette, M., Badeau, N., & Brown, T. G. (2018) · Accident Analysis & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.11.019 · Cited by 52
Heckler, A. F. (2011) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-387691-1.00008-9 · Cited by 50
Selmer, J., Lauring, J., Normann, J., & Kubovcikova, A. (2015) · International Journal of Intercultural Relations · doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.05.004 · Cited by 44
Age Differences in Stroop Interference in Working Memory
McCabe, D. P., Robertson, C. L., & Smith, A. D. (2005) · Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/13803390490919218 · Cited by 44
“Another influential framework in the study of working memory is that of Engle and colleagues ( Engle et al. 1999 ; Kane & Engle, 2003 ).”
BackgroundColoring an action: Intending to produce color events eliminates the Stroop effect
Hommel, B. (2004) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0146-5 · Cited by 44
“To account for the latter , I suggested an interpretation in terms of goal neglect , taking up a line of reasoning from Kane and Engle (2003a).”
InfluentialImpact of Working Memory Load on Cognitive Control in Trait Anxiety: An ERP Study
Qi, S., Zeng, Q., Luo, Y., Duan, H., Ding, C., Hu, W., & Li, H. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111791 · Cited by 43
“This explanation is consistent with the idea that individuals with low WM capacity are more likely to be affected by irrelevant information than those with high WM capacity [45,46].”
Developmental relations between working memory and inhibitory control
Roncadin, C., Pascual‐Leone, J., Rich, J. B., & Dennis, M. (2006) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617707070099 · Cited by 43
Kim, H. S., An, Y. M., Kwon, J. S., & Shin, M. (2014) · Psychiatry Investigation · doi:10.4306/pi.2014.11.4.394 · Cited by 46
“Kane & Engle (2003)50 reported that individual differences in working memory capacity predicted performance on the Stroop task, which also requires goal maintenance.”
BackgroundBeyond trial-by-trial adaptation: A quantification of the time scale of cognitive control.
Aben, B., Verguts, T., & den Bussche, E. V. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000324 · Cited by 43
Habit strength is predicted by activity dynamics in goal-directed brain systems during training
Zwosta, K., Ruge, H., Goschke, T., & Wolfensteller, U. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.09.062 · Cited by 44
“132 (which also involves competition between a goal-directed and habitual response) it has been suggested that RT and error rate compatibility effects might be partially caused by different mechanisms (Kane and Engle, 2003): While compatibility effects in error rates might reflect goal neglect, i.”
Executive Function in Low Birth Weight Preschoolers: The Moderating Effect of Parenting
and the Family Life Project Investigators, Camerota, M., Willoughby, M. T., Cox, M. J., & Greenberg, M. T. (2015) · Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology · doi:10.1007/s10802-015-0032-9 · Cited by 43
“Working Memory Span (WMS; Working Memory) In the Working Memory Span, based upon principles described by Engle, Kane and collaborators (e.g., Kane and Engle 2003), children are shown a picture of a house with an animal and a colored circle inside.”
MethodEffective scheduling of looking and talking during rapid automatized naming.
Gordon, P. C., & Hoedemaker, R. S. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000171 · Cited by 44
“…item, such as those for visual identification, name retrieval and articulatory planning/execution, and also on the efficiency of general mechanisms that directly support scheduling, such as working-memory capacity and executive function (Engle, 2002; Kane & Engle, 2003; Miyake & Friedman, 2012).”
Executive function deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder
Kofler, M. J., Soto, E. F., Singh, L. J., Harmon, S. L., Jaisle, E. M., Smith, J. N., Feeney, K. E., & Musser, E. D. (2024) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-024-00350-9 · Cited by 51
Adapting to an initial self-regulatory task cancels the ego depletion effect
Dang, J., Dewitte, S., Mao, L., Xiao, S., & Shi, Y. (2013) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.05.005 · Cited by 42
“We suggest that subsequent tasks could be designed that are differentially sensitive to these two processes to explore this question (c.f., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundDissociable Effects of Motivation and Expectancy on Conflict Processing: An fMRI Study
Soutschek, A., Stelzel, C., Paschke, L. M., Walter, H., & Schubert, T. (2014) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00712 · Cited by 42
Reduced representations capacity in visual working memory in trait anxiety
Qi, S., Chen, J., Hitchman, G., Zeng, Q., Ding, C., Li, H., & Hu, W. (2014) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.08.010 · Cited by 42
“Studies have demonstrated that WM capacity is positively associated with the inhibition capabilities of an individual in diverse cognitive control tasks, such as the stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003), flanker task (Redick & Engle, 2006), and antisaccade task (Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004).”
BackgroundThe Recall of Information from Working Memory
Towse, J. N., Cowan, N., Hitch, G. J., & Horton, N. J. (2008) · Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · doi:10.1027/1618-3169.55.6.371 · Cited by 42
“Kane and Engle (2003) suggested that controlled attention is required to preserve memory representations at the same time as the concurrent processing requirements.”
BackgroundExecutive and perceptual distraction in visual working memory.
Allen, R. J., Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. J. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000413 · Cited by 41
“This general conclusion might appear to run counter to the claims of Engle and colleagues (e.g., Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999; Kane & Engle, 2003), who have suggested that the control and inhibition of interference is a key feature of working memory function, and that attentional…”
ResultBarzykowski, K., Radel, R., Niedźwieńska, A., & Kvavilashvili, L. (2018) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-018-1120-6 · Cited by 44
Working Memory and Intelligence
Conway, A. R. A., Getz, S. J., Macnamara, B. N., & de Abreu, P. E. (2011) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511977244.021 · Cited by 42
Theory and Measurement of Working Memory Capacity Limits
Cowan, N., Morey, C. C., Chen, Z., Gilchrist, A. L., & Saults, J. S. (2008) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)00002-9 · Cited by 44
“Despite the strength of such findings (for convergent evidence, see Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003), several related points must be considered, as follows: (1) Any Trait X distinguishing high‐ and low‐span individuals may not be the only diVerence between the groups or…”
BackgroundDelaloye, C., Ludwig, C., Borella, E., Chicherio, C., & Ribaupierre, A. D. (2007) · European Review of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.erap.2006.12.004 · Cited by 43
Working memory training remains a work in progress.
Shipstead, Z., Hicks, K. L., & Engle, R. W. (2012) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.07.009 · Cited by 40
“We do not recommend the continued use of the Stroop task, as it requires a large number of trials and the interaction with WM capacity can be quite small (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Self-citationThe effect of working memory capacity on conflict monitoring
Weldon, R. B., Mushlin, H. M., Kim, B. Z., & Sohn, M.-H. (2012) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.10.002 · Cited by 41
“As mentioned earlier, individual differences in performance on tasks from the interference paradigm arise only when it is necessary to flexibly respond to conflict information (Kane & Engle, 2003; Redick & Engle, 2006).”
BackgroundInfluentialContextual Control of Choice Performance
Haddon, J. E., & Killcross, S. (2007) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1196/annals.1390.000 · Cited by 42
Working memory capacity modulates task performance but has little influence on task choice
Butler, K. M., Arrington, C. M., & Weywadt, C. R. (2010) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0055-y · Cited by 41
“…Hall, Department of Psychology, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001, USA e-mail: kmbutler@unm.edu C. M. Arrington Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA C. Weywadt University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA tion and maintain goals, as in a Stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundInfluential
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
