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 701–800 of 1,005
BUNTING, M. F., Cowan, N., & Colflesh, G. J. H. (2008) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/mc.36.4.799 · Cited by 23
“…of information can be held in the focus of attention and these chunks sometimes must include the task goals and instructions (especially when conflicting responses are activated, as in Kane & Engle, 2003), which then would be expected to compete with the data being stored in the focus of attention.”
BackgroundMeier, M. E., & Kane, M. J. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000147 · Cited by 23
“They therefore show greater interference than do higher WMC subjects when they encounter the infrequent incongruent trials (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
InfluentialSelf-citationLeiva, A., Andrés, P., Servera, M., Verbruggen, F., & Parmentier, F. B. R. (2016) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0000163 · Cited by 23
“…however find a significant negative correlation between WMC and deviance distraction in older adults, which may reflect greater top-down cognitive control in individuals with greater WMC, as suggested by the link between WMC and executive functioning (e.g., Conway & Kane, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundNieto-Márquez, N. L., García-Sinausía, S., & Nieto, M. Á. P. (2021) · Anales de Psicología · doi:10.6018/analesps.383941 · Cited by 58
Henshaw, H., Heinrich, A., Tittle, A., & Ferguson, M. (2021) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000001096 · Cited by 24
“This task serves to assess improvements in an auditory task of sustained attentional control, which is the ability to maintain goal-relevant information in the face of distraction, resulting from any improvements in working memory capacity (e.g., Kane & Engle 2003.”
BackgroundRezapour, T., Hatami, J., Farhoudian, A., Noroozi, A., Daneshmand, R., Sofuoglu, M., Baldacchino, A., & Ekhtiari, H. (2021) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108558 · Cited by 22
Neural effects of cognitive control load on auditory selective attention
Sabri, M., Humphries, C., Verber, M., Liebenthal, E., Binder, J. R., Mangalathu-Arumana, J., & Desai, A. (2014) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.06.009 · Cited by 25
“Evidence on the relationship between selective attention and working memory comes from studies showing a replicable positive correlation on behavioral performance measures between the tasks (Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundWorking memory is related to perceptual processing: A case from color perception.
Allen, E. C., Beilock, S. L., & Shevell, S. K. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0023257 · Cited by 22
“If there is an automatic tendency to recall the representation of the light entering the eye that must be inhibited, the performance of LowWM individuals will suffer, as the inhibition of automatic responses likely requires attentional control (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
High intelligence prevents the negative impact of anxiety on working memory
Chuderski, A. (2014) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2014.969683 · Cited by 23
“The dependent variable was the difference between mean accuracy in the incongruent and congruent trials (see Kane & Engle, 2003).”
MethodAttentional control of response selection in task switching.
Schneider, D. W. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000091 · Cited by 23
The Role of Cognitive Load in Intentional Forgetting Using the Think/No-Think Task
Noreen, S., & de Fockert, J. W. (2017) · Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000347 · Cited by 24
Individual differences in working memory capacity predict learned control over attentional capture.
Robison, M. K., & Nash Unsworth, A. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/xhp0000419 · Cited by 23
“For example, when completing the Stroop task, individual differences in WMC only predict resistance to Stroop interference when there is a relatively high proportion of congruent trials (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe effects of cognitive capacity and gaming expertise on attention and comprehension
Lee, Y.-H., & Heeter, C. (2017) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12193 · Cited by 25
Kim, M. H., Shimomaeda, L., Giuliano, R. J., & Skowron, E. A. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2017.07.002 · Cited by 22
Working memory and flexibility in awareness and attention
Bunting, M. F., & Cowan, N. (2005) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-004-0204-7 · Cited by 22
“For example, Kane and Engle (2003) found a negative relationship between individual differences in”
BackgroundInfluentialThe neural bases of distracter-resistant working memoryPreprint
Wager, T. D., Spicer, J., Insler, R. Z., & Smith, E. E. (2011) · Nature Precedings · doi:10.3758/s13415-013-0226-y · Cited by 26
“…2002; Engle, Kane, & Tuholski, 1999; Fry & Hale, 1996; Kane & Engle, 2003; Kane & Engle, 2002), correlates with other indices of ‘executive function’ (Bleckley, Durso, Crutchfield, Engle, & Khanna, 2003; Kane & Engle, 2003), and predicts everyday cognitive failures (Friedman & Miyake, 2004).”
Working memory load dissociates contingency learning and item-specific proportion-congruent effects.
Spinelli, G., Krishna, K., Perry, J. R., & Lupker, S. J. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000934 · Cited by 21
Castillo, J., Castro, J. J. F., Baliyan, S., Ortells-Pareja, J. J., Ortells, J. J., & Cimadevilla, J. M. (2020) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci10080552 · Cited by 24
“This frontal function allows us to actively manipulate information for executing complex tasks [10] and favors the maintenance of relevant information while discarding that regarded as irrelevant [11].”
BackgroundWalker, H. E. K., Eng, R. A., & Trick, L. M. (2021) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2021.04.021 · Cited by 21
Rosas, R., Espinoza, V., Martínez, C., & Santa-Cruz, C. (2022) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence10040125 · Cited by 24
Working memory capacity affects the interference control of distractors at auditory gating
TSUCHIDA, Y., Katayama, J., & Murohashi, H. (2012) · Neuroscience Letters · doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2012.03.057 · Cited by 21
“Several studies have 10 reported that response inhibition was an important contributor to WMC [11, 12, 15], while 11 another study had an opposite view on this relation [10].”
ResultEvent structure and cognitive control.
Reimer, J. F., Radvansky, G. A., Lorsbach, T. C., & Armendarez, J. J. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000105 · Cited by 21
“…items stored 1 Braver et al.’s theory of cognitive control is similar to Engle and Kane’s (Engle, 2002, 2004; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003; Redick & Engle, 2011) view of working memory capacity (executive attention), which refers to “the ability to maintain…”
Lorentz, E. J., McKibben, T., Ekstrand, C., Gould, L. A., Anton, K. F., & Borowsky, R. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00386 · Cited by 21
“Among the hypotheses proposed to account for Stroop effects, many have argued that both semantic conflict and response conflict make up the basis of Stroop effects (MacLeod, 1991; Botvinick et al., 2001; De Houwer, 2003; Kane and Engle, 2003; Roelofs, 2010; Anton et al., 2014).”
BackgroundExecutive Function Computerized Training in Very Preterm-Born Children: A Pilot Study
Aarnoudse-Moens, C. S. H., Twilhaar, E. S., Oosterlaan, J., van Veen, H. G., Prins, P. J. M., van Kaam, A. H., & Leemhuis, A. G. (2018) · Games for Health Journal · doi:10.1089/g4h.2017.0038 · Cited by 27
“4,6,36,37 Working memory training helps children to become more attentive in their daily activities.”
List-level control in the flanker task
Bugg, J. M., & Gonthier, C. (2020) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/1747021820912477 · Cited by 23
Working memory and fluid intelligence: A multi-mechanism view
Conway, A. R. A., Macnamara, B. N., Getz, S. J., & de Abreu, P. E. (2011) · Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) · Cited by 21
Updating the emotional content of working memory in social anxiety
Segal, A., Kessler, Y., & Anholt, G. E. (2015) · Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.02.012 · Cited by 24
“…by both input selection, namely focusing on the relevant information while filtering out irrelevant one (Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999; Kane & Engle, 2003), and removing previously-relevant information when it becomes outdated, presumably through inhibitory processes (e.g., Hasher,…”
BackgroundDistractor interference stays constant despite variation in working memory load
Chen, Z., & Chan, C. C. (2007) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03194069 · Cited by 21
Social anhedonia associated with poor evaluative processing but not with poor cognitive control
Martin, E. A., & Kerns, J. G. (2010) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2009.08.018 · Cited by 21
“Previous functional brain imaging, experimental, and neuropsychological research with this task suggests that it involves cognitive control (Carter et al., 2000; Wentura, 2000; Kane and Engle, 2003; Kerns et al., 2004; Kerns et al., 2008b).”
Interference due to shared features between action plans is influenced by working memory span
Fournier, L. R., Behmer, L. P., & Stubblefield, A. M. (2014) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0627-0 · Cited by 21
Attention in schizophrenia: Impaired inhibitory control, faulty attentional resources, or both?
Michael, G. A., Dorey, J., Rey, R., d’Amato, T., Fabre, D., Brunet, S., & Padovan, C. (2020) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113164 · Cited by 20
Minamoto, T., Yaoi, K., Osaka, M., & Osaka, N. (2015) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.07.025 · Cited by 22
Supporting task resumption using visual feedback
Liu, Y., Jia, Y., Pan, W., & Pfaff, M. S. (2014) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/2531602.2531710 · Cited by 21
“A monitoring lapse of neglecting a goal often leads to failure in self-control [29].”
BackgroundEmotional Stroop interference in trauma-exposed individuals: A contrast between two accounts
Caparos, S., & Blanchette, I. (2014) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.06.009 · Cited by 24
“Numerous studies have shown that Cognitive Stroop interference is predicted by participants' working-memory efficacy (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003; Kiefer, Ahlegian, & Spitzer, 2005; Long & Prat, 2002).”
Bengson, J. J., & Mangun, G. R. (2010) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-010-0020-7 · Cited by 20
“Particularly striking is that measures of recall and recognition using complex span tasks that require the simultaneous processing and storage of information within high level domains such as mathematics and language predict performance on low level tasks that require attention (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWorking Memory, Mental Prospection, Time Orientation, and Cognitive Insight
Cinan, S., & Doğan, A. (2013) · Journal of Individual Differences · doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000111 · Cited by 20
Prepotent response inhibition predicts treatment outcome in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
der Oord, S. V., Geurts, H. M., Prins, P. J. M., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., & Oosterlaan, J. (2011) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2011.559159 · Cited by 20
“It has been criticized for also assessing other neurocognitive functions, in addition to interference control (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2001), and for not being sensitive to differentiate between ADHD and normal controls (e.g., Van Mourik et al., 2005).”
BackgroundOn working memory and a productivity illusion in distracted driving.
Watson, J. M., Memmott, M., Moffitt, C. C., Coleman, J. R., Turrill, J., Fernández, Á., & Strayer, D. L. (2016) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.06.008 · Cited by 21
A cross-sectional examination of response inhibition and working memory on the Stroop task
Duell, N., Icenogle, G., Silva, K., Chein, J. M., Steinberg, L. D., Banich, M. T., Guinta, L. D., Dodge, K. A., Fanti, K. A., Lansford, J. E., et al. (2018) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.02.003 · Cited by 22
Nieznański, M., & Obidziński, M. (2019) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2019.1567517 · Cited by 20
“We prepared two versions of the Stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA new integrated approach for adolescent health and well-being: the AVATAR project
Mastorci, F., Bastiani, L., Trivellini, G., Doveri, C., Vassalle, C., & Pingitore, A. (2020) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/s12955-020-01291-6 · Cited by 21
“In addition, for cognitive assessment, as reported in literature, we have chosen only Stroop test for its application in attention, processing speed, cognitive flexibility, and working memory evaluation [45].”
MethodAuditory selective attention under working memory load
Bayramova, R., Toffalini, E., Bonato, M., & Grassi, M. (2020) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-020-01437-7 · Cited by 20
“…they suggest that studies that find WMC to be a predictor in, for example, the dichotic listening task (Conway et al., 2001), a go/no-go task (Redick & Engle, 2006), and Stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003), all use extreme group comparisons which leads to an overestimation of effect sizes.”
BackgroundGonthier, C., Ambrosi, S., & Blaye, A. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0001005 · Cited by 20
Jongen, E. M. M., & Jonkman, L. M. (2010) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01037.x · Cited by 20
“…WMmodels that have defined WM capacity as an executive construct (Baddeley, 1993; Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Kane, Conway, Bleckley, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003), responsible for active maintenance of goal-relevant information in face of concurrent processing, interference, and conflict.”
BackgroundAge-related changes in strategic variations during arithmetic problem solving
Hinault, T., & Lemaire, P. (2016) · Progress in brain research · doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2016.03.009 · Cited by 19
“These negativity were observed over anterior left sites of the scalp, suggesting an involvement of executive control, as anterior left sites were frequently found to be activated in conflict tasks (eg, Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundRuigendijk, H., & Koole, S. L. (2014) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/s11031-014-9415-4 · Cited by 20
“Presumably, this is because participants only infrequently need to implement proactive control in the high-congruency context, which makes it tempting to become more passive and may hence foster lapses in proactive control (Kane and Engle 2003).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialFunctional brain and age-related changes associated with congruency in task switching
Eich, T. S., Parker, D., Liu, D., Oh, H., Razlighi, Q. R., Gazes, Y., Habeck, C. G., & Stern, Y. (2016) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.08.009 · Cited by 22
“…thought to represent the neural correlates of remedial cognitive control processes serving to detect and resolve response-conflict – by suppressing the responses that are automatically triggered by attributes of the presented stimulus in favor of goal-relevant responses (Kane and Engle, 2003).”
Etzel, J. A., Brough, R. E., Freund, M. C., Kizhner, A., Lin, Y., Singh, M. F., Tang, R., Tay, A., Wang, A., & Braver, T. S. (2022) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01226-4 · Cited by 23
The impact of processing speed training on working memory in old adults.
Peng, H., Wen, J., Wang, D., & Gao, Y. (2012) · Journal of Adult Development · doi:10.1007/s10804-012-9142-6 · Cited by 19
“Accordingly, the failure of executive attention could be seen as ‘‘goal neglect’’ (Kane and Engle 2003).”
BackgroundNash Unsworth, A., Miller, A. L., & Strayer, D. L. (2024) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-024-02516-1 · Cited by 26
“Theoretically, this is because the prepotent response conflicts with the task goal (“Say the color not the word”), and attention control processes are needed to maintain the task goal and bias correct responding (e.g., Cohen et al., 1990; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
InfluentialYao, Z., Sligte, I. G., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2024) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2024.108974 · Cited by 20
Aly, M., & Kojima, H. (2020) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.13674 · Cited by 21
Effects of working memory on L2 linguistic knowledge and L2 listening comprehension
Satori, M. (2021) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716421000345 · Cited by 29
“Kane and Engle (2003) also showed that there was a significant difference in Stroop task performance between high-span participants and low-span participants only when the task demanded more attention to maintain the task goal.”
BackgroundIndividual differences in memory and attention processes in prospective remembering
Ball, B. H., Wiemers, E. A., & Brewer, G. A. (2022) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-022-02059-3 · Cited by 19
Khandekar, P., Shenoy, S., & Sathe, A. (2022) · The Journal of General Psychology · doi:10.1080/00221309.2022.2048785 · Cited by 20
Effect of 11 Weeks of Physical Exercise on Physical Fitness and Executive Functions in Children
Zhang, M., Garnier, H., Qian, G., & Li, S. (2023) · Children · doi:10.3390/children10030485 · Cited by 20
“The working memory span task was employed to analyze working memory as previously described [24].”
MethodJian-hua, Z., & Zhang, L. J. (2024) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-024-10568-x · Cited by 31
“The participants’ working memory capacity was measured employing the operation span (OSPAN) task, which was developed by Engle and his colleagues (e.g., Turner & Engle, 1989; Kane et al., 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Working memory training shows immediate and long-term effects on cognitive performance in children
Pugin, F., Metz, A. J., Stauffer, M., Wolf, M., Jenni, O. G., & Huber, R. (2014) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.3665.2 · Cited by 20
“Although our results do not corroborate the theory of attentional control being a crucial factor for working memory 28 , we do not question the necessity of cognitive control for reasoning.”
Borella, E., Ludwig, C., Fagot, D., & de Ribaupierre, A. (2011) · Archives of gerontology and geriatrics (Print) · doi:10.1016/j.archger.2010.11.005 · Cited by 22
“spans when irrelevant responses must be inhibited (Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundFive-Year-Old Children’s Working Memory Can Be Improved When Children Act On A Transparent Goal Cue
Fitamen, C., Blaye, A., & Camos, V. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-51869-4 · Cited by 19
How attention controls naming: Lessons from Wundt 2.0.
Roelofs, A. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0001030 · Cited by 18
“(p. 650) This view is supported by research examining the relation between WM capacity and goal neglect in the Stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003; Meier & Kane, 2013; Morey et al., 2012).”
BackgroundTrude, A. M., & Tokowicz, N. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00611.x · Cited by 19
Synergies between processing and memory in children’s reading span
Towse, J. N., Hitch, G. J., Horton, N. J., & Harvey, K. (2009) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00929.x · Cited by 19
Endogenous versus exogenous attentional cuing effects on memory
Hauer, B. J. A., & MacLeod, C. M. (2006) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.12.008 · Cited by 21
“After having seen the arrows pointing up or down, the participants had to store the arrows’ direction in their working memory ( Kane & Engle, 2000, 2003 ).”
BackgroundWorking memory capacity and errors following interruptions.
Foroughi, C. K., Malihi, P., & Boehm‐Davis, D. A. (2016) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.05.002 · Cited by 21
Davis, S. J., Schapiro, S. J., Lambeth, S. P., Wood, L. A., & Whiten, A. (2018) · Journal of comparative psychology · doi:10.1037/com0000123 · Cited by 21
Justice at any cost? The impact of cost–benefit salience on criminal punishment judgments
Aharoni, E., Kleider‐Offutt, H. M., Brosnan, S. F., & Watzek, J. (2018) · Behavioral Sciences & the Law · doi:10.1002/bsl.2388 · Cited by 20
Neural mechanisms of internal distraction suppression in visual attention
Rajan, A., Meyyappan, S., Walker, H., Samuel, I. B. H., Hu, Z., & Ding, M. (2019) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2019.02.026 · Cited by 21
Information processing in hoarding disorder: A systematic review of the evidence
Gledhill, L. J., Bream, V., Drury, H., & Onwumere, J. (2020) · Journal of Affective Disorders Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jadr.2020.100039 · Cited by 21
Sentence Recall in Latent and Anomic Aphasia: An Exploratory Study of Semantics and Syntax
Salis, C., Martin, N., & Reinert, L. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci11020230 · Cited by 18
Elverman, K. H., Paitel, E. R., Figueroa, C. M., McKindles, R. J., & Nielson, K. A. (2021) · Journal of Alzheimer s Disease · doi:10.3233/jad-201559 · Cited by 20
“Complex attentional control tasks, such as the Stroop task, assess a type of higher-order executive functioning [26] that has been shown to tap later conversion to AD when memory does not, even when APOE ɛ4 inheritance is controlled [24, 27].”
Spinelli, G., Morton, J. B., & Lupker, S. J. (2022) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-022-02138-5 · Cited by 18
“Because RT differences for incongruent stimuli are typically interpreted as reflecting differences in interference-resolution processes (Kane & Engle, 2003), the RT pattern we obtained may suggest that interference from task-irrelevant information is resolved more efficiently for MI than MC stimuli…”
King, J., Marcus, T., & Markant, J. C. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-32069-7 · Cited by 25
Working Memory and Its Relation to Deterministic Sequence Learning
Martini, M., Furtner, M. R., & Sachse, P. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056166 · Cited by 21
“, language comprehension, [12]; logic learning, [13]; resisting interference, [14]; suppression of irrelevant or goal incongruent information, [15]; learning new facts, [16]; fluid intelligence, [17]; and integration of preexisting domain knowledge, [18]).”
BackgroundSpronk, M., & Jonkman, L. M. (2011) · International Journal of Psychophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.019 · Cited by 19
“One line of evidence comes from behavioral studies showing that adults with low WMspan experience more interference from distracters than adults with high WM-span in conflict-tasks such as Stroop and flanker tasks (Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundInvestigating the relationship between bilingualism, cognitive control, and mind wandering
Shulley, L. J., & Shake, M. C. (2016) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2015.1128438 · Cited by 18
“Morales, GómezAriza, and Bajo (2013) used these terms and described proactive control as referring to goal maintenance (i.e. keeping the goal active to prevent interference) and reactive control as referring to directly inhibiting irrelevant or conflicting information (see also Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Can concurrent memory load reduce distraction? A replication study and beyond.
de Liaño, B. G.-G., Stablum, F., & Umiltà, C. A. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000131 · Cited by 18
Case report: Brucellosis: a re-emerging disease in Thailand.
Manosuthi, W., Thummakul, T., Vibhagool, A., Vorachit, M., & Malathum, K. (2004) · PubMed · Cited by 18
Working Memory Capacity: Self-control Is (in) the Goal
Broadway, J. M., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2010) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195391381.003.0009 · Cited by 18
“In the studies by Kane and Engle (2003) high and low-span participants were instructed to name the color in which a color-word appeared (Stroop, 1935).”
Self-citationTrial type mixing substantially reduces the response set effect in the Stroop task
Hasshim, N., & Parris, B. A. (2017) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.03.002 · Cited by 20
Fabiani, M., Zimmerman, B., & Gratton, G. (2015) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-801371-7.00011-9 · Cited by 20
Endogenous control of task-order preparation in variable dual tasks
Strobach, T., Kübler, S., & Schubert, T. (2019) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-019-01259-2 · Cited by 19
Spatialization in working memory: can individuals reverse the cultural direction of their thoughts?
Guida, A., Mosinski, F., Cipora, K., Mathy, F., & Noël, Y. (2020) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.14499 · Cited by 18
Further evidence that not all executive functions are equal
Was, C. A. (2007) · Advances in Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0004-5 · Cited by 19
“Previous studies have found that the interference effect of the Stroop task is evident in both response latency (e.g, Stroop, 1935; Ward, Roberts, & Phillips, 2001) and accuracy (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003; Rush, Panek, & Russell, 1987) .”
BackgroundKlein, R. J., Liu, T., Diehl, D., & Robinson, M. D. (2017) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2017.07.006 · Cited by 22
Induced Social Power Improves Visual Working Memory
Hadar, B., Luria, R., & Liberman, N. (2019) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167219855045 · Cited by 18
“In contrast, in a Stroop task that had mostly congruent trials, in which the goal had to be kept in working memory, high-power participants performed better than the low-power participants.”
InfluentialIntelligence moderates the relationship between delay discounting rate and problematic alcohol use.
Bailey, A. J., Gerst, K. R., & Finn, P. (2019) · Psychology of Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1037/adb0000471 · Cited by 18
The role of response selection and input monitoring in solving simple arithmetical products
Deschuyteneer, M., & Vandierendonck, A. (2005) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03193379 · Cited by 18
“Also, studies from totally different fields have suggested that when a response needs to be selected from a range of automatically activated responses, the incorrect responses need to be inhibited (e.g., Allain, Carbonnell, Burle, Hasbroucq, & Vidal, 2004; Conway & Engle, 1994; Kane & Engle, 2003 ).”
BackgroundRydval, O. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2046942 · Cited by 18
“on Economic Behavior:”
BackgroundAttentional Control and Working Memory Capacity
Meier, M. E., & Kane, M. J. (2017) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118920497.ch3 · Cited by 20
“It is therefore possible that the previously observed global effects of WMC on Stroop task performance (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003) were the cumulative product of local, trial‐level (local) WMC effects.”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationThe role of contingency and correlation in the Stroop task
Hasshim, N., & Parris, B. A. (2021) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218211032548 · Cited by 18
“An alternative account to the converging information account of facilitation is the inadvertent reading hypothesis (Dunbar & MacLeod, 1984; Kane & Engle, 2003; MacLeod & MacDonald, 2000).”
BackgroundJarraya, S., Jarraya, M., & Engel, F. A. (2022) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.1177/00315125221080334 · Cited by 21
“Inhibition is primarily operationalized by the error rate accuracy (McDowd et al., 1995) that also represents an index of the child’s ability to maintain the task’s goal temporarily in a highly retrievable state (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundKibbe, M. M., & Applin, J. B. (2022) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.13813 · Cited by 17
“…impacts the contents of working memory, allowing an observer to strategically allocate working memory resources to encoding and maintaining representations of task-relevant objects while avoiding interference from other to- be-remembered items or task-irrelevant distractors (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Ultra-brief Assessment of Working Memory Capacity: Ambulatory Assessment Study Using Smartphones
Hakun, J. G., Roque, N. A., Gerver, C. R., & Cerino, E. S. (2023) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/40188 · Cited by 17
“Applied research over the past 30 years has demonstrated that individual differences in WMC are strongly associated with important domains of higher order cognition, development, and behavior, including Gf and reasoning ability [10,11], control of attention or cognitive control [12,48,49], mind wandering [13,50], and…”
BackgroundDo Task Sets Compete in the Stroop Task and Other Selective Attention Paradigms?
Parris, B. A., Hasshim, N., Ferrand, L., & Augustinova, M. (2023) · Journal of Cognition · doi:10.5334/joc.272 · Cited by 18
Cognitive control in age-related hearing loss: A narrative review
Shende, S. A., & Mudar, R. A. (2023) · Hearing Research · doi:10.1016/j.heares.2023.108814 · Cited by 18
Minamoto, T., Shipstead, Z., Osaka, N., & Engle, R. W. (2015) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-015-0866-9 · Cited by 17
“…capacity (WMC), which is strongly related to several aspects of executive attention, such as prepotent response inhibition, selective attention, and novel reasoning (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2002, 2003; Sobel, Gerrie, Poole, & Kane, 2007; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004).”
BackgroundSelf-citationFast trial pacing in a lexical decision task reveals a decay of automatic semantic activation
Neely, J. H., O'Connor, P. A., & Calabrese, G. (2009) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.11.001 · Cited by 17
A Meta-Analysis of Inhibitory-Control Deficits in Patients Diagnosed With Alzheimer's Dementia
Kaiser, A., Kuhlmann, B. G., & Bošnjak, M. (2018) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/neu0000460 · Cited by 18
Itthipuripat, S., Deering, S., & Serences, J. T. (2019) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhz042 · Cited by 18
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
