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 501–600 of 1,005
Limitless capacity: a dynamic object-oriented approach to short-term memory
Macken, W. J., Taylor, J., & Jones, D. M. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00293 · Cited by 41
“…system via mechanisms such as depletion of resources or structural interference between representations of the relevant and irrelevant items, typically based on the similarity between the two (see e.g., Cowan, 1995; Kane and Engle, 2003; Lavie, 2005; Oberauer and Lewandowsky, 2008; Baddeley, 2012).”
BackgroundWith a little help for our thoughts: Making it easier to think for pleasure.
Westgate, E. C., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2017) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/emo0000278 · Cited by 41
Nayar, K., Gordon, P. C., Martin, G. E., Hogan, A. L., Valle, C. L., McKinney, W. S., Lee, M., Norton, E. S., & Losh, M. C. (2018) · Molecular Autism · doi:10.1186/s13229-018-0233-5 · Cited by 40
Distraction and Mind-Wandering Under Load
Forster, S. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00283 · Cited by 50
“These include features of the distractor such as visual salience or abrupt onset in the display (e.g., Theeuwes, 1992; Yantis, 2000) and individual differences (e.g., in working memory capacity (WMC); Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundCalibration of cognitive tests to address the reliability paradox for decision-conflict tasks
Kucina, T., Wells, L., Lewis, I., de Salas, K., Kohl, A. T., Palmer, M. A., Sauer, J., Matzke, D., Aidman, E., & Heathcote, A. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-37777-2 · Cited by 28
Grandjean, J., & Collette, F. (2011) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.08.004 · Cited by 48
“Our results are in agreement with the theoretical views of Hasher and Zacks (Hasher, Lustig, and Zacks, 2007) and Kane and Engle (2003), who clearly linked working memory capacity and inhibitory functioning.”
Cheng, C., Káldy, Z., & Blaser, E. (2019) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100616 · Cited by 40
Aubry, A., Gonthier, C., & Bourdin, B. (2021) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103358 · Cited by 47
“…aspect of executive control, that of resolution of interference (inhibition); this is particularly suited to a study of working memory given that inhibition of interference is an important component of executive control in the functioning of working memory (Kane et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Is there continuity between categorical and coordinate spatial relations coding?
Martin, R., Houssemand, C., Schiltz, C., Burnod, Y., & Alexandre, F. (2007) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.10.010 · Cited by 39
Working Memory Capacity and Visual Attention: Top-Down and Bottom-Up Guidance
Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., & Engle, R. W. (2012) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.655698 · Cited by 39
“By the account of Lavie, Hirst, de Fockert, and Viding ( 2004 ; see also Kane & Engle, 2003 ), working memory biases visual attention toward “high-priority” targets and away from “low-priority” distraction through maintenance of attentional priorities.”
BackgroundSelf-citationSewell, D. K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0026560 · Cited by 39
Idea Formulation for Spoken Language Production: The Interface of Cognition and Language
Barker, M. S., Nelson, N. L., & Robinson, G. A. (2019) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617719001097 · Cited by 42
“Many classic models of attention include an ‘executive’ component, originally thought to be associated with the frontal lobes (Mesulam, 1985; Posner, 1988; Posner & Petersen, 1990; see also ‘controlled attention’: e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundCarrots That Look Like Sticks: Toward an Understanding of Multitasking Incentive Schemes
Al‐Ubaydli, O., Andersen, S., Uri Gneezy, B., & List, J. A. (2014) · Southern Economic Journal · doi:10.4284/0038-4038-2013.248 · Cited by 41
Individual Differences in Metacognitive Responsiveness: Cognitive and Personality Correlates
Washburn, D. A., Smith, J. D., & Taglialatela, L. A. (2005) · The Journal of General Psychology · doi:10.3200/genp.132.4.446-461 · Cited by 39
“…seems more likely to be the result of the intensity of response competition and the necessity of executive attention to maintain task demands and to resolve this competition (Kane & Engle, 2003; Posner & Raichle, 1994; Washburn), rather than being the result of metacognitive monitoring per se.”
BackgroundMindfulness and the aging brain: a proposed paradigm shift
Prakash, R. S., Leon, A. A. D., Patterson, B., Schirda, B. L., & Janssen, A. L. (2014) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2014.00120 · Cited by 43
“As noted earlier, goal-neglect errors and related differences in working memory capacity during cognitive control performance have been suggested to stem in part from momentary failures of conscious thought control (Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundWorking memory capacity predicts listwise directed forgetting in adults and children
Aslan, A., Zellner, M., & Bäuml, K. T. (2010) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211003742698 · Cited by 38
“…has been found to predict performance in a number of inhibitory tasks, including dichotic listening (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001), negative priming (Conway, Tuholski, Shisler, & Engle, 1999), the Stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003), and the antisaccade task (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001).”
BackgroundUnderstanding Normal and Impaired Reading Development
de Jong, P. F. (2006) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-012554465-8/50004-1 · Cited by 39
Le développement de la flexibilité cognitive chez l’enfant préscolaire : enjeux théoriques
Chevalier, N., & Blaye, A. (2006) · L’Année psychologique · doi:10.4074/s0003503306004040 · Cited by 37
“…face à l’interférence d’informations non pertinentes constituent une caractéristique essentielle de la mémoire de travail (MDT) dans certaines modélisations (e.g., Engle, Kane, & Tuholski, 1999 ; Kane & Engle, 2003 ; Mecklinger, Weber, Gunter, & Engle, 2003 ; Oberauer, Lange, & Engle, 2004).”
BackgroundSchreppel, T., Bogon, J., Schecklmann, M., Plichta, M. M., Pauli, P., Ellgring, H., Fallgatter, A. J., & Herrmann, M. J. (2008) · Neuropsychobiology · doi:10.1159/000147473 · Cited by 39
Working Memory and the Strategic Control of Attention in Older and Younger Adults
Hayes, M. G., Kelly, A. J., & Smith, A. D. (2012) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbs057 · Cited by 38
“…with greater WMC are better able to maintain activation of task-relevant information while inhibiting distracting interference, relative to individuals with lesser WMC, and a relationship between WMC and selectivity performance was expected (Kane & Engle, 2003; McCabe, Robertson, & Smith, 2005).”
BackgroundMeasuring working memory capacity on the web with the online working memory lab (the OWL).
Hicks, K. L., Foster, J. L., & Engle, R. W. (2016) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.07.010 · Cited by 37
Self-citationBall, H., Peper, P., Alakbarova, D., Brewer, G. A., & Gilbert, S. J. (2021) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2021.1991380 · Cited by 41
Pompon, R. H., McNeil, M. R., Spencer, K. A., & Kendall, D. L. (2015) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2015_jslhr-l-14-0063 · Cited by 38
“Conway & Engle, 1994; Cowan, 1988; Houghton & Tipper, 1994; Houghton, Tipper, Weaver, & Shore, 1996; Kane & Engle, 2003; Miyake et al., 2000).”
BackgroundInfluentialExecutive control mechanisms in bilingualism: Beyond speed of processing
Marton, K., Goral, M., Campanelli, L., Yoon, J., & Obler, L. K. (2016) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728915000930 · Cited by 37
“Inhibitory control, particularly resistance to interference, is associated with several other cognitive processes, such as goal maintenance and conflict resolution (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundGoal-neglect links Stroop interference with working memory capacity
Morey, C. C., Elliott, E. M., Wiggers, J., Eaves, S. D., Shelton, J. T., & Mall, J. T. (2012) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.05.013 · Cited by 38
Aschenbrenner, A. J., & Balota, D. A. (2015) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/pag0000012 · Cited by 37
Grandjean, J., D’Ostilio, K., Fias, W., Phillips, C. L. M., Balteau, E., Degueldre, C., Luxen, A., Maquet, P., Salmon, É., & Collette, F. (2013) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.02.015 · Cited by 41
“This effect has traditionally been studied at a global or list-wide level by comparing performance on congruent and incongruent blocks, namely blocks containing a majority of congruent or incongruent items, respectively (Bélanger, Belleville, & Gauthier, 2010; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
The Stroop effect at 80: The competition between stimulus control and cognitive control
Washburn, D. A. (2016) · Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior · doi:10.1002/jeab.194 · Cited by 37
Media multitasking and implicit learning
Edwards, K. S., & Shin, M. (2017) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-017-1319-4 · Cited by 42
“Participants were divided into three groups (low, medium, high) based on their working memory performance as in Kane and Engle (2003).”
MethodModulation of conflicts in the Stroop effect
Shichel, I., & Tzelgov, J. (2017) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.10.007 · Cited by 42
Broadening the cancer and cognition landscape: the role of self-regulatory challenges
Arndt, J., Das, E., Schagen, S. B., Reid‐Arndt, S. A., Cameron, L. D., & Ahles, T. A. (2013) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.3351 · Cited by 36
“Research increasingly shows that stereotype threat can undermine cognitive and memory resources [57,66], and moreover, that such decrements mediate stereotype threat effects on performance outcomes [67].”
BackgroundMorrison, R. (2005) · Cited by 36
Age differences in the neural correlates of distraction regulation: A network interaction approach
Amer, T., Anderson, J. A. E., Campbell, K. L., Hasher, L., & Grady, C. L. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.06.036 · Cited by 46
“This ability, known as distraction control, contributes to many cognitive skills (such as working memory, task-switching, and recall) and is known to vary between individuals and across the lifespan (e.g., Hasher and Zacks, 1988; Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundPeripheral cuing by abrupt-onset cues: the influence of color in S?R corresponding conditions
Ulrich Ansorge, A., & Heumann, M. (2004) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.01.001 · Cited by 37
Mindfulness: A Primrose Path for Therapists Using Manualized Treatments?
Stanley, S., Reitzel, L. R., Wingate, L. R., Cukrowicz, K. C., Lima, E. N., & Joiner, T. E. (2006) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/jcop.20.3.327 · Cited by 38
“It is well-established that competing tasks can lead to performance degradation (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003 ), which suggests that highly mindful therapists may be less effective when implementing manualized treatment than are less mindful therapists.”
BackgroundReed, J. L., Gallagher, N. M., Sullivan, M. E., Callicott, J. H., & Green, A. E. (2017) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2017.01.001 · Cited by 38
“Indeed, increasing cognitive demand frequently yields increased individual differences in WM-related tasks (Bielinski & Davison, 1998; Drew & Vogel, 2008; Grabner et al., 2007; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
The effects of negative air ions on cognitive function: an event-related potential (ERP) study
Chu, C., Chen, S., Wu, C., Cheng, Y.-C., Cho, Y.-M., & Chang, Y. (2019) · International Journal of Biometeorology · doi:10.1007/s00484-019-01745-7 · Cited by 36
Observing changes in human functioning during induced sleep deficiency and recovery periods
Ochab, J. K., Jerzy Szwed, A., Oleś, K., Beres, A. M., Chialvo, D. R., Domagalik, A., Fąfrowicz, M., Gudowska-Nowak, E., Marek, T., Nowak, M. A., et al. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255771 · Cited by 41
Working-memory performance is related to spatial breadth of attention
Kreitz, C., Furley, P., Memmert, D., & Simons, D. J. (2014) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0633-x · Cited by 35
“…are faster and more accurate on an anti-saccade task (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004), perform better on a Stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003; Long & Prat, 2002), and are less disrupted by distractors during dichotic listening (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001).”
Phonological memory in bilinguals and monolinguals
Yoo, J., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2012) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0237-x · Cited by 36
A dual contribution to the involuntary semantic processing of unexpected spoken words.
Parmentier, F. B. R., Turner, J., & Pérez, L. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0031550 · Cited by 36
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2011) · The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511977244.040 · Cited by 77
Enhanced dimension-specific visual working memory in grapheme–color synesthesia
Terhune, D. B., Wudarczyk, O. A., Kochuparampil, P., & Kadosh, R. C. (2013) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.06.009 · Cited by 35
“Given the relationship between working memory and attentional control (Kane & Engle, 2003), this result suggests that synesthetes will not exhibit superior working memory, although it is possible that a synesthesia-specific working memory advantage is present for inducer or concurrent information.”
BackgroundRetrieval-Induced Remembering and Forgetting
Bäuml, K. T., & Kliegl, O. (2017) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-809324-5.21048-1 · Cited by 37
Investigating the relationship between media multitasking and processes involved in task-switching.
Alzahabi, R., Becker, M. W., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000412 · Cited by 43
“Many areas in psychology, including working memory for example, are now more informed and better understood because of the successful application of individual differences research (e.g., Cowan et al., 2005; Daneman & Carpenter, 1980: Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundAssessing the temporal learning account of the list-wide proportion congruence effect.
Cohen‐Shikora, E. R., Suh, J., & Bugg, J. M. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000670 · Cited by 35
Toward a model-based cognitive neuroscience of mind wandering
Hawkins, G. E., Mittner, M., Boekel, W., Heathcote, A., & Forstmann, B. U. (2015) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.09.053 · Cited by 35
“, Luria, 1966), but has also been observed in normal adult populations – where it is correlated with working memory capacity (Kane and Engle, 2003), fluid intelligence and instructional complexity of the task (Duncan et al.”
Interference Control in Children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
van Mourik, R., Papanikolau, A., Bijlhout, J., van Oostenbruggen, J., Veugelers, D., Uiterweer, A. P., Sergeant, J. A., & Oosterlaan, J. (2008) · Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology · doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9277-x · Cited by 37
“Because interference control is related to both response inhibition (Friedman and Miyake 2004) and working memory (Kane and Engle 2003), it is plausible that interference control in ADHD is more affected in the visual domain than the auditory domain.”
BackgroundIndividual differences in the ability to avoid distracting sounds
Elliott, E. M., Barrilleaux, K., & Cowan, N. (2006) · The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/09541440500216044 · Cited by 35
“One limitation of the procedure of Kane and Engle (2003) is that it reflects a situation in which it is exceedingly difficult to ignore the distracting stimuli (printed colour words often matching the colours).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialExecutive Function and Ambiguous Sentence Comprehension
Key-DeLyria, S., & Altmann, L. J. P. (2016) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2015_ajslp-14-0111 · Cited by 42
Resource-sharing in multiple-component working memory
Doherty, J. M., & Logie, R. H. (2016) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-016-0626-7 · Cited by 35
“…exploring what drives the correlation between individual differences in measures of working memory capacity and individual differences in a wide range of other cognitive abilities (e.g., Daneman & Hannon, 2007; Kane & Engle, 2002, 2003; Unsworth, Brewer, & Spillers, 2009; Unsworth & Engle, 2007).”
BackgroundWorking memory capacity and task goals modulate error-related ERPs
Coleman, J. R., Watson, J. M., & Strayer, D. L. (2018) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.12805 · Cited by 33
You, Y., Chen, Y., Li, J., Zhang, Q., Zhang, Y., Yang, P., & Cao, Q. (2023) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-023-27053-7 · Cited by 34
“1 3 capacity, in other words, the number of items our brain can retain and manipulate, is strongly associated with fluid intelligence and a number of measures of executive control (Kane and Engle 2003; Kane et al. 2005; Redick et al. 2011).”
BackgroundGunn, R. L., & Finn, P. (2014) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.033 · Cited by 34
“Reduced E-WMC also has been associated with poor inhibitory control on a range of tasks (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003; Redick & Engle, 2006), including incentive learning go/no-go tasks (Endres et al., 2014; Redick, Calvo, Gay, & Engle, 2011), but not the cued go/no-go…”
The role of working memory in childhood education: Five questions and answers
Cockcroft, K. (2015) · South African Journal of Childhood Education · doi:10.4102/sajce.v5i1.347 · Cited by 43
“…stores and plays several regulatory roles, which include accessing information from long-term memory, paying attention, planning, inhibiting automatic behaviours, and simultaneously holding and processing information (Heyes, Zokaei, Van der Staaij et al 2012; Kane & Engle 2003; Pickering 2001).”
BackgroundThe generalizability of working-memory capacity in the sport domain
Buszard, T., Masters, R. S. W., & Farrow, D. (2017) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.018 · Cited by 34
“Given that attention control and avoidance of distraction are primary functions of WM capacity [9], it seems logical that WM capacity influences performance under pressure.”
BackgroundWang, L., Zhang, Y., Lin, X., Zhou, H., Du, X., & Dong, G. (2017) · CNS Spectrums · doi:10.1017/s1092852917000360 · Cited by 35
“The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex plays a role in attentional bias for gaming-related stimuli as well; it involves in salience attribution and top-down attention.(25) Thus, we expected that ICA would capture activity in those areas involved in attentional bias (eg, the frontal cortex, the parietal cortex, and the ins…”
BackgroundThe advantage of globally visible landmarks for spatial learning
Credé, S., Thrash, T., Hölscher, C., & Fabrikant, S. I. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101369 · Cited by 34
Petrigna, L., Gentile, A., Mani, D., Pajaujienė, S., Zanotto, T., Thomas, E., Paoli, A., Palma, A., & Bianco, A. (2020) · Journal of Aging and Physical Activity · doi:10.1123/japa.2019-0474 · Cited by 34
Bosco, F. A., Allen, D. G., & Singh, K. (2015) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12099 · Cited by 34
Interference control in working memory: Comparing groups of children with atypical development
Palladino, P., & Ferrari, M. (2012) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2011.633505 · Cited by 38
“…role of interference control in working memory, have employed different interference control tasks (e.g., Stroop task, Hayling task; see for example Kane & Engle, 2003) or have used analysis of error type to explore the hypothesis from a correlational and/or indirect point of view alone (De Beni…”
BackgroundMethodLakens, D., Schneider, I. K., Jostmann, N. B., & Schubert, T. W. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611412391 · Cited by 34
“Correct responses on incongruent trials in a Stroop task require more cognitive control than correct responses on congruent or neutral trials (e.g., Jostmann & Koole, 2007; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
MethodSelective attention in early Dementia of Alzheimer Type
Fernandez‐Duque, D., & Black, S. E. (2007) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2007.08.003 · Cited by 34
“…be compromised in healthy aging and DAT, impaired performance in conflict resolution in Stroop-like tasks is difficult to interpret (De Jong, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003; Mayr, 2001; Nieuwenhuis, Broerse, Nielen, & de Jong, 2004; Fernandez-Duque & Black, 2006; Spieler, Balota, & Faust, 1996); it may…”
BackgroundInfluentialPerformance and flow: A review and integration of self-objectification research.
Quinn, D. M., Chaudoir, S. R., & Kallen, R. W. (2010) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/12304-006 · Cited by 39
Inhibitory Control, Working Memory and L2 Interaction
Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Üzüm, B. (2013) · Second language learning and teaching · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23547-4_6 · Cited by 32
Meier, M. E., Smeekens, B. A., Silvia, P. J., Kwapil, T. R., & Kane, M. J. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000431 · Cited by 33
“…in the early 2000s (Kane et al., 2001; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004; for other seminal findings, see Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Conway & Engle, 1994; Conway, Tuholski, Shisler, & Engle, 1999; Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999; Kane & Engle, 2003; Rosen & Engle, 1997, 1998).”
ResultSelf-citationWorking Memory Capacity but Not Prior Knowledge Impact on Readers' Attention and Text Comprehension
Schurer, T., Opitz, B., & Schubert, T. (2020) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2020.00026 · Cited by 48
The role of working memory in long-term learning: Implications for childhood development
Forsberg, A., Adams, E. J., & Cowan, N. (2021) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2021.02.001 · Cited by 40
Monaghan, A. S., Huisinga, J. M., & Peterson, D. S. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-92353-2 · Cited by 33
Robust evidence for proactive conflict adaptation in the proportion-congruent paradigm.
Spinelli, G., & Lupker, S. J. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0001144 · Cited by 33
Control of Auditory Attention in Children With Specific Language Impairment
Victorino, K. R., & Schwartz, R. G. (2015) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2015_jslhr-l-14-0181 · Cited by 33
Hara, Y., & Naveh‐Benjamin, M. (2014) · Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition · doi:10.1080/13825585.2014.889650 · Cited by 31
“…individuals vary in their amount of WM resources, and a growing body of research (e.g., Conway & Engle, 1996; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2000, 2003; Rosen & Engle, 1997; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004) has shown individual differences in performance on different…”
BackgroundDebey, E., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Houwer, J. D., Schryver, M. D., & Verschuère, B. (2015) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2015.09.005 · Cited by 38
Severity of Type 2 Diabetes, Cognitive Function, and Self-Care
Gatlin, P. K., & Insel, K. C. (2014) · Biological Research For Nursing · doi:10.1177/1099800414557565 · Cited by 33
“…process in which an individual maintains or holds information in mind over a period of time while simultaneously ignoring or neglecting other nonrelevant information and retrieving older pertinent information to achieve a task (Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundHow chunks form in long-term memory and affect short-term memory limits
Cowan, N., & Chen, Z. (2008) · doi:10.4324/9780203938966-11 · Cited by 33
“Given a great deal of other evidence relating low working memory span to the relatively poor control of attention (e.g., Kane et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003), Conway et al. suggested that noticing one's own name may occur only in individuals who do not have very good control of attention, which…”
BackgroundPsychotropic placebos reduce the misinformation effect by increasing monitoring at test
Parker, S., Garry, M., Engle, R. W., Harper, D. N., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2008) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658210801956922 · Cited by 33
“Kane and Engle (2003) varied the mix of congruent vs incongruent trials to encourage a habit of ignoring the word*and then found that higher-span participants were better able to break the habit to avoid errors on incongruent trials.”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationContext, Conflict, and Control
Bugg, J. M. (2017) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118920497.ch5 · Cited by 37
Kofler, M. J., Groves, N. B., Chan, E. S. M., Marsh, C. L., Cole, A. M., Gaye, F., Cibrian, E., Tatsuki, M. O., & Singh, L. J. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1277583 · Cited by 35
“These fi ndings are generally consistent with dual-mechanism accounts of inhibitory control from the cognitive literature (61), which emphasize the impact of working memory capacity for resolving response competition (e.g., between the con fl icting color and word dimensions in the Stroop task),…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAttentional control and asymmetric associative priming.
Hutchison, K. A., Heap, S. J., Neely, J. H., & Thomas, M. A. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0035781 · Cited by 32
“…from high-and low-WMC individuals , showing that high-WMC individuals exert more proactive goal maintenance control across trials, whereas low-WMC individuals instead rely more on reactive stimulus-driven mechanisms of control that operate within trials (Hutchison, 2011; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Horn, S. R. G.-V., Roos, L. E., Beauchamp, K. G., Flannery, J., & Fisher, P. A. (2018) · Journal of Trauma & Dissociation · doi:10.1080/15299732.2018.1441353 · Cited by 34
“Further, performance on EF tasks is highly correlated with attention processes (Kane & Engle, 2003; Miller & Marcovitch, 2015).”
MethodStereotype Threat Impairs Older Adult Driving
Lambert, A. E., Watson, J. M., Stefanucci, J. K., Ward, N., Bakdash, J. Z., & Strayer, D. L. (2015) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3162 · Cited by 32
“However, if this were the case, one would expect that those higher in WMC would be better able to adopt and adhere to this safer driving strategy than those lower in WMC, that is, higher WMC is linked to better goal maintenance (Braver & West, 2008; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundThe Influence of Attention Set, Working Memory Capacity, and Expectations on Inattentional Blindness
Kreitz, C., Furley, P., Memmert, D., & Simons, D. J. (2015) · Perception · doi:10.1177/0301006615614465 · Cited by 36
“People with greater working memory capacity can use their cognitive resources more flexibly, better adjusting their attention to the task requirements (Bleckley, Durso, Crutchfield, Engle, & Khanna, 2003; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundStroop Dilution Revisited: Evidence for Domain-Specific, Limited-Capacity Processing.
Roberts, M. A., & Besner, D. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.3 · Cited by 32
Jostmann, N. B., & Koole, S. L. (2010) · doi:10.1002/9781444318111.ch15 · Cited by 32
Distraction control processes in free recall: Benefits and costs to performance.
Marsh, J. E., Sörqvist, P., Hodgetts, H. M., Beaman, C. P., & Jones, D. M. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0037779 · Cited by 31
Domain-specific control mechanisms for emotional and nonemotional conflict processing
Soutschek, A., & Schubert, T. (2012) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.004 · Cited by 31
Buszard, T., Farrow, D., Zhu, F., & Masters, R. S. W. (2015) · Psychology of sport and exercise · doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.07.005 · Cited by 31
“…low WMC individuals in tasks that require the restraint of attention, such as antisaccade tasks (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Unsworth, Redick, Spillers, & Brewer, 2012; Unsworth, Schrock, Engle, 2004) and Stroop tasks (Kane & Engle, 2003; Long & Pratt, 2002; Unsworth et al., 2012).”
BackgroundStocco, A., Murray, N. L., Yamasaki, B. L., Renno, T. J., Nguyen, J., & Prat, C. S. (2017) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.03.001 · Cited by 33
Training and transfer effects of interference control training in children and young adults
Zhao, X., & Jia, L. (2018) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-018-1007-6 · Cited by 33
An ERP investigation of the working memory stroop effect
Wang, W., Qi, M., & Gao, H. (2021) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107752 · Cited by 31
Li, Y., Wang, Y., Yu, F., & Chen, A. (2021) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.25467 · Cited by 31
“…control demand by varying the block-wise relative frequencies of incongruent trials and congruent trials in a classic word-color Stroop task that has been used widely in cognitive control research (Braem et al., 2019; Kane & Engle, 2003; Torres-Quesada, Lupianez, Milliken, & Funes, 2014).”
MethodInhibitory control as a moderator of threat-related interference biases in social anxiety
Gorlin, E. I., & Teachman, B. A. (2014) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2014.931275 · Cited by 31
“The colour-word Stroop block consisted of 24 colour-word stimuli presented in a quasi-randomised order, such that congruent colour words were presented twice as frequently as incongruent colour words (based on Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundCognitive control components and speech symptoms in people with schizophrenia
Becker, T. M., Cicero, D. C., Cowan, N., & Kerns, J. G. (2012) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2011.10.003 · Cited by 32
“…is a potentially central component of cognitive control and refers to the representation and maintenance of important task critical information, such as rules, goals, instructions, or intentions (Cohen and Servan-Schreiber, 1992; Cohen et al., 1996; Kane and Engle, 2003; Braver et al., 2007).”
BackgroundWorking Memory and Speech Comprehension in Older Adults With Hearing Impairment
Nagaraj, N. K. (2017) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2017_jslhr-h-17-0022 · Cited by 31
Clarifying cognitive control and the controllable connectome
Medaglia, J. D. (2018) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science · doi:10.1002/wcs.1471 · Cited by 30
Laeng, B., Låg, T., & Brennen, T. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.3.438 · Cited by 31
Symbiosis of executive and selective attention in working memory
Vandierendonck, A. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00588 · Cited by 33
Learning to Integrate versus Inhibiting Information Is Modulated by Age
Cappelletti, M., Pikkat, H., Upstill, E., Speekenbrink, M., & Walsh, V. (2015) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1018-14.2015 · Cited by 34
“Inhibiting task-irrelevant information is known for being vulnerable to aging (May and Hasher, 1998; Kane and Engle, 2003; Hasher et al., 2007), also in the case of numeracy (Cappelletti et al., 2014).”
BackgroundGreen, A. E., Gray, J. R., DeYoung, C. G., Mhyre, T. R., Padilla, R. M., DiBattista, A. M., & Rebeck, G. W. (2014) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.12.020 · Cited by 32
“The most conspicuous neurocognitive deficit associated with AD is memory impairment, but the disease also has dramatic effects on a set of complex thinking skills referred to as executive function (Kane & Engle, 2003; Silveri, Reali, Jenner, & Puopolo, 2007).”
Oliveira, R. M., Mograbi, D. C., Gabrig, I. A., & Charchat‐Fichman, H. (2016) · Psychology & Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/pne0000041 · Cited by 30
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
