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 601–700 of 1,005
Broadbent, D. P., Causer, J., Williams, A. M., & Ford, P. R. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000375 · Cited by 30
“The Stroop test was selected due to the high cognitive demands it places on working memory (Kane & Engle, 2003; Long & Prat, 2002).”
MethodLazar, M. (2017) · The Neuroscientist · doi:10.1177/1073858416634298 · Cited by 31
Kessler, Y. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02260 · Cited by 32
“WM plays a crucial role in maintaining the relevant task set and biasing performance according to it (Miller and Cohen, 2001; Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundAttentional shifts to rare singletons
Horstmann, G., & Ulrich Ansorge, A. (2006) · Visual Cognition · doi:10.1080/13506280500236492 · Cited by 30
“Bottom-up singleton capture, in turn, may depend on factors in addition to the mere presence of a singleton, for example, task demands that foster occasional intrusions of taskinappropriate singleton-search strategies (for general arguments along these lines see Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundVariability in visual working memory ability limits the efficiency of perceptual decision making
Ester, E. F., Ho, T. C., Brown, S. D., & Serences, J. T. (2014) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/14.4.2 · Cited by 30
Orr, J. M., & Weissman, D. H. (2011) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00031 · Cited by 31
Ahmed, L., & de Fockert, J. W. (2012) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-012-0357-1 · Cited by 30
Grajewska, B. Ż. V., Sim, E.-J., Hoenig, K., Herrnberger, B., & Kiefer, M. (2011) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2011.09.022 · Cited by 31
Öztekin, I., & McElree, B. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0018029 · Cited by 28
“…the WMC effects to controlled, strategic operations that are similar to those that may be involved in other tasks in which WMC effects have been observed, such as the antisaccade task (Kane et al., 2001), the Stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003), and the dichotic listening task (Conway et al., 2001).”
Two-to-one color-response mapping and the presence of semantic conflict in the Stroop task
Hasshim, N., & Parris, B. A. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01157 · Cited by 30
“As far as we are aware, this is the first report of this finding, and one that suggests that debates over the mechanisms behind facilitation (MacLeod and MacDonald, 2000; Kane and Engle, 2003; Brown, 2011; Roelofs, 2010) should first consider contingency.”
BackgroundPromising High Monetary Rewards for Future Task Performance Increases Intermediate Task Performance
Zedelius, C. M., Veling, H., Bijleveld, E., & Aarts, H. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042547 · Cited by 33
“, [38,39]), and previous work indicates that task performance under this condition is sensitive to monetary rewards [27].”
BackgroundWorking Memory Capacity Depends on Attention Control, but Not Selective Attention
Kotyusov, A. I., Kasanov, D., Kosachenko, A. I., Gashkova, A. S., Pavlov, Y. G., & Malykh, S. B. (2023) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs13020092 · Cited by 48
“However, some studies have shown an increase in association with the effect observed when performing a task with a large number of incongruent trials [9,70].”
BackgroundMiller, S., McCulloch, S., & Jarrold, C. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00524 · Cited by 34
“…Psychology, University of Bristol, 12a Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TU, UK c.jarrold@bristol.ac.uk Specialty section: This article was submitted to Developmental Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology Received: 30 November 2014 Accepted: 13 April 2015 Published: 01 May…”
Background말언어장애군의 단기기억 및 작업기억용량 측정을 위한 지시하기과제 개발 예비 연구
성지은 (2011) · Eon'eo cheong'gag jang'ae yeon'gu/Communication sciences & disorders · Cited by 29
Goals Can Be Threatened to Extinction
Hutchison, K. A., Smith, J. L., & Ferris, A. C. (2012) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550612440734 · Cited by 33
“Consistent with this interpretation, Kane and Engle (2003) found that individuals low in working memory capacity (WMC) showed larger Stroop effects than high-WMC individuals, and that this difference was especially pronounced under mostly congruent conditions.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMarsh, J. E., Vachon, F., & Sörqvist, P. (2016) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2016.1172094 · Cited by 29
Assessing working memory capacity in a non-native language
Sanchez, C. A., Wiley, J., Miura, T. K., Colflesh, G. J. H., Ricks, T. R., Jensen, M. S., & Conway, A. R. A. (2010) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.001 · Cited by 31
The Age-Related Changes in Cognitive Function
HyeWonLee, 정유진, 이고은, 박지윤, & 김선경 (2012) · 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 · doi:10.22172/cogbio.2012.24.2.003 · Cited by 29
The cost of proactive interference is constant across presentation conditions
Endress, A. D., & Siddique, A. (2016) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.08.001 · Cited by 28
Parris, B. A., Dienes, Z. P., & Hodgson, T. L. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00647 · Cited by 29
“It has been argued that μ is where response competition is mainly registered (Kane and Engle, 2003; Steinhauser and Hübner, 2009).”
BackgroundInfluentialBecker, K. R., Fischer, S. F., Smith, G. T., & Miller, J. D. (2016) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.019 · Cited by 31
Parris, B. A., & Dienes, Z. P. (2013) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.05.009 · Cited by 30
“Such a possibility is consistent with the finding that greater Stroop interference results in those with lower working memory capacity (e.g. Kane & Engle, 2003).”
ResultUsing stroop task to assess cognitive load
Jacek Gwizdka, A. (2010) · European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics · doi:10.1145/1962300.1962345 · Cited by 28
“Here the secondary task imposed higher demands on semantic processing (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundKeijzer, M. (2013) · Brain Science · doi:10.3390/brainsci3031261 · Cited by 26
“Kane, M.J.; Engle, R.W. Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference.”
BackgroundDifferential effects of dopamine-directed treatments on cognition
Ashby, F. G., Valentin, V. V., & von Meer, S. S. (2015) · Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment · doi:10.2147/ndt.s65875 · Cited by 29
“To accommodate this higher-order manipulation of information, working memory processes are subject to prefrontal executive control, such as inhibition of nonrelevant information, attentional guidance, and associative monitoring.(12,15,16) Thus, working memory processes may be grossly divided into two parts, ie, mainte…”
Congruency precues moderate item-specific proportion congruency effects
Hutchison, K. A., Bugg, J. M., Lim, Y. B., & Olsen, M. R. (2016) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-016-1066-y · Cited by 28
“Because proactive control has traditionally been assumed to be greater for MI lists (Cohen, Dunbar, & McClelland, 1990; Kane & Engle, 2003), this was taken as evidence for interactivity, such that the tendency for MC words to draw attention toward word reading was greater when top-down control was…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWeidacker, K., Whiteford, S., Boy, F., & Johnston, S. J. (2016) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1135350 · Cited by 34
The role of frontal executive functions in hypnosis and hypnotic suggestibility.
Parris, B. A. (2017) · Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice · doi:10.1037/cns0000106 · Cited by 28
“Outside of the context of research on hypnosis, when investigating differences in Stroop interference in individuals with high and low working memory capacity, Kane and Engle (2003) only observed group differences under experimental conditions that made it difficult to maintain goal focus.”
BackgroundTrait impulsivity components correlate differently with proactive and reactive control
Huang, S., Zhu, Z., Zhang, W., Chen, Y., & Zhen, S. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176102 · Cited by 29
Self‐control depletion impairs goal maintenance: A meta‐analysis
Dang, J., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2017) · Scandinavian Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/sjop.12371 · Cited by 36
Simonis, M., der Linden, L. V., Galand, B., Hiligsmann, P., & Szmalec, A. (2019) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s136672891900021x · Cited by 32
The Effects of Working Memory, Perceptual Speed, and Inhibition in Aggregated Search
Arguello, J., & Choi, B. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3322128 · Cited by 28
“As noted in Kane and Engle [34], the Stroop test is a “mainstay of research concerning selective attention and the external versus executive control of behavior” (p.”
BackgroundPeck, T. C., & Tutar, A. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2020.2973061 · Cited by 28
“The 80% congruent and 20% incongruent trial weights were selected due to the surprise effect of well-dispersed conflict trials [20].”
MethodBehmer, L. P., & Fournier, L. R. (2013) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2013.11.031 · Cited by 33
Theoretically driven experiments may clarify questions about the bilingual advantage
Marton, K. (2014) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728914000546 · Cited by 27
“Furthermore, Kane and Engle (2003) propose that the Stroop interference is determined by goal maintenance and competition resolution, which in turn depends on working memory capacity.”
BackgroundThe Relationship Between Creativity and Attention in Adults
Carruthers, L., MacLean, R., & Willis, A. (2018) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2018.1530910 · Cited by 27
“As previous studies have shown, it is likely that the mean RT for incongruent trials would be higher than for congruent trials (Kane & Engle, 2003), due to the conflicting information presented on screen, thus taking the participant longer to process.”
Early childcare, executive functioning, and the moderating role of early stress physiology.
Berry, D. J., Family Life Project Key Investigators, Blair, C., Ursache, A., Willoughby, M. T., & Granger, D. A. (2013) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034700 · Cited by 36
The Relationship of Attention and Intelligence
SCHWEIZER, K. W. (2010) · Plenum series on human exceptionality · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1210-7_15 · Cited by 28
“Attention as executive control is restricted to higher mental processing that is a special type of processing associated with working memory ( Kane & Engle, 2003 ) and frequently characterized as controlled processing (Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977).”
BackgroundStroop interference effect in schizophrenic patients: An electrophysiological approach
Markela-Lerenc, J., Schmidt-Kraepelin, C., Roesch-Ely, D., Mundt, C., Weisbrod, M., & Kaiser, S. (2008) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.10.005 · Cited by 27
The influence of working memory load on the Simon effect
Zhao, X., Chen, A., & West, R. L. (2010) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/pbr.17.5.687 · Cited by 27
Kim, K., Bohnen, N. I., Müller, M. L. T. M., & Lustig, C. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.01.021 · Cited by 27
Hambrick, D. Z., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511607073.007 · Cited by 27
Self-citationHocking, D. R., Menant, J. C., Kirk, H., Lord, S. R., & Porter, M. A. (2013) · Research in Developmental Disabilities · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.10.005 · Cited by 28
When the poor excel: Poverty facilitates procedural learning
Dang, J., Xiao, S., Zhang, T., Liu, Y., Jiang, B., & Mao, L. (2016) · Scandinavian Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/sjop.12292 · Cited by 30
Reductions in Goal-Directed Cognition as a Consequence of Being the Target of Empathy
Vorauer, J. D., Quesnel, M. S., & Germain, S. L. S. (2015) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167215617704 · Cited by 26
“Ability to exert executive control to maintain goal focus was assessed with a majority-congruent Stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
MethodHow attention factors into executive function in preschool children
Deodhar, A., & Bertenthal, B. I. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1146101 · Cited by 39
Monner, D. D., Vatz, K., Morini, G., Hwang, S., & DEKEYSER, R. M. (2012) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728912000454 · Cited by 27
“…reality, working memory is most likely composed of a complex interaction of factors, such as attention (Conway, Cowan & Bunting, 2001; Engle, 2002; Kane & Engle, 2003), inhibition or filtering mechanisms (Vogel, McCollough & Machizawa, 2005), rehearsability (Baddeley, 2003; Gathercole & Baddeley,…”
BackgroundReward sensitivity and electrodermal responses to actions and outcomes in a go/no-go task
Le, T. M., Wang, W., Zhornitsky, S., Dhingra, I., Zhang, S., & Li, C. R. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0219147 · Cited by 25
The Cognitive Underpinnings of Multiply-Constrained Problem Solving
Ellis, D. M., Brewer, G. A., & Robison, M. K. (2021) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence9010007 · Cited by 27
Belief Bias Effect in Older Adults: Roles of Working Memory and Need for Cognition
Ding, D., Chen, Y., Lai, J., Chen, X., Han, M., & Zhang, X. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02940 · Cited by 26
Rinaldi, D., Sforza, M., Assogna, F., Savini, C., Salvetti, M., Caltagirone, C., Spalletta, G., & Pontieri, F. E. (2020) · Journal of Neural Transmission · doi:10.1007/s00702-020-02259-y · Cited by 26
Marra, M. L., Villano, I., Ilardi, C. R., Carosella, M., Staiano, M., Iavarone, A., Chieffi, S., Messina, G., Polito, R., Porro, C., et al. (2022) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci12060777 · Cited by 27
“Previous literature has reported its application for the assessment of other cognitive domains such as attention, processing speed, cognitive flexibility, and working memory [57,58].”
BackgroundMaterial-specific interference control is dissociable and lateralized in human prefrontal cortex
Geddes, M. R., Tsuchida, A., Ashley, V., Diane Swick, A., & Fellows, L. K. (2014) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.09.024 · Cited by 28
“, 2011; Salthouse, 1996) and efficient resolution of interference (Kane et al., 2001; Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundIndividual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and Retrieval: A Cue-Dependent Search Approach.
Nash Unsworth, A., & Engle, R. W. (2007) · Cited by 25
Self-citationTan, Y., & Martin, R. C. (2018) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.03.001 · Cited by 26
“However, as discussed earlier, this may have resulted from the fact that the Stroop effect for these subjects was in terms of RTs rather than accuracy, given their ceiling effects on accuracy as prior results suggest that RT effects reflect goal maintenance whereas accuracy effects reflect conflict resolution (Kane an…”
Banich, M. T., Smolker, H. R., Snyder, H. R., Lewis‐Peacock, J. A., Godinez, D. A., Wager, T. D., & Hankin, B. L. (2019) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.12.006 · Cited by 31
Higher-order preferences and the Master Rationality Motive
Stanovich, K. E. (2008) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546780701384621 · Cited by 29
“…view is consistent with much recent work on executive function and working memory (Conway, Kane, & Engle, 2003; Duncan, Emslie, Williams, Johnson, & Freer, 1996; Engle, 2002; Gray, Chabris, & Braver, 2003; Kane & Engle, 2002, 2003; Salthouse, Atkinson, & Berish, 2003; Unsworth & Engle, 2005, 2007).”
Strayer, D. L., & Drews, F. A. (2007) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470713181.ch2 · Cited by 29
Watford, T. S., & Stafford, J. (2015) · Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice · doi:10.1037/cns0000039 · Cited by 25
“…despite contending response tendencies, which means individual’s with higher WMC performed better on the Stroop color-word interference task (Kane & Engle, 2003), had greater control of visual attention (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001), and successfully ignored unimportant cues…”
BackgroundYeari, M. (2017) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2017.04.002 · Cited by 26
Indices of association between anxiety and mindfulness: a guide for future mindfulness studies
Jaiswal, S., Muggleton, N. G., Juan, C.-H., & Liang, W. (2019) · Personality Neuroscience · doi:10.1017/pen.2019.12 · Cited by 26
“It seems reasonable to observe impaired conflict control and working memory in high-anxiety or low mindfulness individuals, as both executive functions have been reported to be correlated with each other (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundSastoque, L. G., Bouazzaoui, B., Isingrini, M. L., & Angel, L. (2022) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-022-01018-8 · Cited by 27
“Executive attention enables the maintenance of task-relevant goals, the suppression of less pertinent responses, and the creation of new bindings (Kane & Engle, 2003; McCabe et al., 2010).”
BackgroundLi, M., Lindenmuth, M., Tarnai, K., Lee, J., King‐Casas, B., Kim‐Spoon, J., & Deater-Deckard, K. D. (2022) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2022.101139 · Cited by 33
Hochwarter, W. A., Meurs, J. A., Perrewé, P. L., Royle, M. T., & Matherly, T. A. (2007) · Journal of Managerial Psychology · doi:10.1108/02683940710757227 · Cited by 26
“When working memory capacity is low, attention control is adversely affected ( Kane and Engle, 2003”
BackgroundHauke, J., Fimm, B., & Sturm, W. (2011) · Neuropsychological Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09602011.2010.541792 · Cited by 25
“Recent research indicates that goal maintenance may be especially challenged under “simple” conditions with no interference, conflict, or dual-task demands, as is characteristic of simple reaction time (SRT) tasks used to assess intrinsic alertness (Dreisbach & Haider, 2007; Goschke & Dreisbach, 2008 ; Kane & Engle, 2…”
Proactive interference and practice effects in visuospatial working memory span task performance
Blalock, L. D., & McCabe, D. P. (2011) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2010.537035 · Cited by 25
“More specifically, these data are consistent with Kane and Engle's view that individual differences in WM capacity are driven by a domain-general executive that maintains task goals and resists build up of PI (Engle & Kane, 2004; Kane & Engle, 2000, 2003 ).”
Aging and inhibition deficits: Where are the effects?
Burke, D. M., & Osborne, G. (2007) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/11587-009 · Cited by 25
“…different versions of the Stroop task (Shilling, Chetwynd & Rabbitt, 2002), the lack of independence of Stroop performance from other non-inhibition cognitive measures (Salthouse, Atkinson & Berish, 2003) and controversy about the mechanisms contributing to Stroop interference (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundIndividual differences in multiple types of shifting attention
Wager, T. D., Jonides, J., & Smith, E. E. (2006) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03195934 · Cited by 25
“…calculated for each participant after removing outliers greater than three standard deviations from the mean of the condition within participants (Kane & Engle, 2003) This procedure was chosen because it produced the highest overall split-half (odd/even trial) reliabilities and test–retest…”
MethodSnyder, H. R., Banich, M. T., & Munakata, Y. (2014) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00652 · Cited by 24
“…related competitor words in the picture–word interference task (e.g., dog picture with the word cat; e.g., Maanen, Rijn, & Borst, 2009; Schriefers, Meyer, & Levelt, 1990; Lupker, 1979) and naming the ink color of incongruent color words in the Stroop task (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003; Stroop, 1935).”
Simon says: Reliability and the role of working memory and attentional control in the Simon task
Borgmann, K. W. U., Risko, E. F., Stolz, J. A., & Besner, D. (2007) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03194070 · Cited by 35
“(1995) and Kane and Engle (2003). The pattern of reliabilities found here does not support the predictions we derived from the Toth et al. (1995) account. We suggested that, if the associative automatic route were reliable, the .25- and .75-compatible conditions should have yielded greater reliability than the .50 con…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialCognitive load modulates attentional capture by color singletons during effortful visual search
Burnham, B. R. (2010) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.05.003 · Cited by 26
Cognitive load theory and its measurement: a study of secondary tasks in relation to working memory
Greenberg, K., & Zheng, R. Z. (2022) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2022.2026052 · Cited by 27
“…showed when individuals have more attentional resources in working memory, they have a greater ability for response inhibition suggesting response inhibition demands more attentional resources in working memory (Conway & Engle, 1994; Kane & Engle, 2003; Redick et al., 2011; Redick et al., 2007).”
BackgroundMarra, M. L., Ilardi, C. R., Villano, I., Carosella, M., Staiano, M., Iavarone, A., Chieffi, S., Messina, G., Polito, R., Scarinci, A., et al. (2022) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci12081080 · Cited by 30
“Moreover, it appears to tap other cognitive domains such as attention, processing speed, cognitive flexibility, and working memory [71,72].”
BackgroundRuge, H., & Wolfensteller, U. (2015) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.005 · Cited by 25
“Following Kane and Engle (2003) we assumed that reversal cost in RTs and errors might (at least in part) reflect different sub-processes.”
InfluentialWorking memory differences in illusory recollection of critical lures
Bixter, M. T., & Daniel, F. K. (2013) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-013-0293-x · Cited by 24
“WM differences are commonly found when participants have to executively allocate attention between two competing tasks while simultaneously maintaining an overarching goal (e.g., Colflesh & Conway, 2007; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Drunk, but not blind: The effects of alcohol intoxication on change blindness
Colflesh, G. J. H., & Wiley, J. (2013) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.01.001 · Cited by 27
“They are better able to maintain the goal of reporting ink color in the face of interference during a Stroop task (i.e. when ink and color match on 75% of the trials, Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundCamos, V., & Barrouillet, P. (2013) · Psychologie Française · doi:10.1016/j.psfr.2012.12.003 · Cited by 25
Time flies faster if a person has a high working-memory capacity
Woehrle, J. L., & Magliano, J. P. (2012) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.006 · Cited by 24
“…the passage of time while engaging in a cognitive task requires attentional control, which is strongly correlated with working-memory capacity (Broadway & Engle, 2011; Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Engle, 2001, 2002; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane et al., 2007; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundEng, K., Lewis, R. L., Tollinger, I., Chu, A., Howes, A., & Vera, A. H. (2006) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1124772.1124866 · Cited by 24
Individual differences in working memory capacity and filtering.
Robison, M. K., Miller, A. L., & Nash Unsworth, A. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000513 · Cited by 29
“For example, Kane and Engle (2003) showed that high- and low-WM participants do not differ when presented with a high proportion of incongruent Stroop trials.”
BackgroundInfluentialPennington, C. R., Litchfield, D., McLatchie, N. M., & Heim, D. (2018) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2540 · Cited by 31
“Instead they argue that despite appearing motivated to correct for their mistakes, stereotype threatened participants continue to produce incorrect responses; a behaviour indicative of impaired working memory (Kane & Engle, 2003; Mitchell, Macrae, & Gilchrist, 2002).”
BackgroundYurgil, K. A., & Golob, E. J. (2013) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.12140 · Cited by 24
“When examining interactions between attention and WMC, previous studies found that individuals with high WMC are less distractible compared to low WMC during cognitive tasks, such as proactive interference in short-term memory (Kane & Engle, 2000), dichotic listening (Colflesh & Conway, 2007; Conway, Cowan, & Bunting,…”
InfluentialSauce, B., Wass, C., Smith, A., Kwan, S. A., & Matzel, L. D. (2014) · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory · doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2014.10.005 · Cited by 25
“However, if test trials are preceded by congruent trials (in which color and word match), there is an internal source of interference originating from the repetition of the tendency to read the word (Cohen, Dunbar, & McClelland, 1990; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Motivational and cognitive determinants of control during conflict processing
Soutschek, A., Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2013) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2013.870134 · Cited by 24
“For example, in the domain of “proactive” control processes, several studies reported that the magnitude of the Stroop effect decreases with the proportion of incongruent stimuli within a block (Carter et al., 2000; Kane & Engle, 2003; Logan & Zbrodoff, 1998).”
BackgroundEvidence for multiple manipulation processes in prefrontal cortex
Eldreth, D. A., Patterson, M. D., Porcelli, A. J., Biswal, B. B., Rebbechi, D., & Bart Rypma, A. (2006) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.07.129 · Cited by 29
“To test this hypothesis, we parametrically varied WM load (cf. Braver et al., 1997, Kane and Engle, 2003, Sternberg, 1966) while subjects performed item-order and reordering DRTs.”
BackgroundMethodHakun, J. G., & Johnson, N. F. (2017) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2017.08.007 · Cited by 23
“…and retrieving memory traces (Alvarez & Cavanagh, 2004; Barrouillet, Bernardin, & Camos, 2004; Bays, Catalao, & Husain, 2009; Cowan, 1999, 2005; Engle, 2002; Kane & Engle, 2003; Luck & Vogel, 2013; Oberauer, Lewandowsky, Farrell, Jarrold, & Greaves, 2012; Unsworth, Fukuda, Awh, & Vogel, 2014).”
InfluentialZhou, X., Planalp, E. M., Heinrich, L., Pletcher, C., DiPiero, M. A., Alexander, A. L., Litovsky, R. Y., & Dean, D. (2022) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.798358 · Cited by 29
Process-oriented intelligence research: A review from the cognitive perspective
Frischkorn, G. T., Wilhelm, O., & Oberauer, K. (2022) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2022.101681 · Cited by 25
Fatigue of Cognitive Control in the Stroop-Task
Rauch, W. A., & Schmitt, K. D. (2009) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 23
Danthiir, V., Wilhelm, O., & Roberts, R. D. (2012) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.12.010 · Cited by 23
A phonologically congruent sound boosts a visual target into perceptual awareness
Adam, R., & Noppeney, U. (2014) · Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnint.2014.00070 · Cited by 24
“…Conrad et al., 2010; Noppeney et al., 2010; Werner and Noppeney, 2010a; Hsiao et al., 2012), Stroop (Banich et al., 2000; MacDonald et al., 2000; Kane and Engle, 2003; Egner and Hirsch, 2005; Egner, 2007) and flanker (Gratton et al., 1992; Botvinick et al., 1999; Lavie et al., 2003; Egner,…”
BackgroundMitchell, R. L. C. (2010) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2225-3 · Cited by 23
“occurs because the conflict between ink colour and colour word unwittingly serves as a reminder that behaviour may need modifying ( Kane and Engle 2003 ).”
BackgroundShipstead, Z., & Broadway, J. M. (2012) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.04.003 · Cited by 23
Lenaert, B., van de Ven, V. G., Kaas, A. L., & Vlaeyen, J. W. S. (2015) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2015.10.001 · Cited by 23
“It has been shown that individuals differ in their efficiency in inhibiting or filtering irrelevant information from working memory (Kane & Engle, 2003; Vogel, McCollough, &Machizawa, 2005; Zanto & Gazzaley, 2009), which in turn may affect working memory capacity and the successful retention of…”
BackgroundThe role of modality: Auditory and visual distractors in Stroop interference
Elliott, E. M., Morey, C. C., Morey, R. D., Eaves, S. D., Shelton, J. T., & Lutfi-Proctor, D. A. (2013) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2013.859133 · Cited by 23
“Following the convention of previous research with a manipulation of congruency percentages (Kane & Engle, 2003; Meier & Kane, 2013; Morey, Elliott, Wiggers, Eaves, & Shelton, 2012), unanalysed filler trials were included to satisfy the 75% overall congruency proportion within the task.”
Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation Does Not Enhance the Effects of Working Memory Training
Holmes, J., Byrne, E. M., Gathercole, S. E., & Ewbank, M. (2016) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00993 · Cited by 25
“Secondary measures of cognitive processes linked with working memory, including tests of inhibition (Kane & Engle, 2003) and measures of selective attention (de Fockert, Rees, Frith, & Lavie, 2001), were included alongside tests of information processing and standardized tests of general cognitive…”
Bisagno, E., & Morra, S. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2017.10.008 · Cited by 23
Quantitative modeling of user performance in multitasking environments
Liu, S., & Nam, C. S. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.035 · Cited by 23
General mental ability and goal type as antecedents of recurrent adaptive task performance.
Howe, M. D. (2019) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000379 · Cited by 28
Zheng, H., Luo, J., & Yu, R. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00856 · Cited by 26
“…and sustain more working memory, as well as initiate, organize, and monitor relevant memory to keep the scene and associated problems in mind (Kane and Engle, 2003); (2) envision and encode abstract action sequences which lead to the problem’s solution and maintain movement plans (Gerlach et…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-70
- ISSN
- 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2222
- OpenAlex
- W2118932991
- Cited by
- 1,725
- References
- 122
- Citations by year
- 2026: 53 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 93 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 84 · 2016: 103 · 2015: 94 · 2014: 102 · 2013: 92 · 2012: 115
- FWCI
- 18.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- libres.uncg.edu
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Keywords
- working memory capacity, Stroop interference, executive function, goal neglect, response competition, task sets, selective attention, goal maintenance, individual differences, reaction time (psychology), incongruent trials
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attention, Competitive Behavior, Goals, Humans, Memory, Psychological Tests, Random Allocation, Reaction Time
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
