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 801–900 of 1,005
Lucenet, J., & Blaye, A. (2019) · Cognitive Development · doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2019.05.001 · Cited by 19
Fitousi, D. (2020) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/1747021820904222 · Cited by 21
Dey, A., & Bugg, J. M. (2021) · Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-020-00853-x · Cited by 17
“…Simon) are significantly increased in lists with a low (i.e., mostly congruent) relative to high (i.e., mostly incongruent) probability of conflict (Kane & Engle, 2003; Lindsay & Jacoby, 1994; Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979; Logan et al., 1984; Lowe & Mitterer, 1982; Toth et al., 1995; for reviews see…”
BackgroundArakaki, X., Hung, S., Rochart, R., Fonteh, A. N., & Harrington, M. G. (2021) · Neurobiology of Aging · doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2021.11.009 · Cited by 18
Power, Leadership, and Self‐Regulation
Ent, M. R., Baumeister, R. F., & Vonasch, A. J. (2012) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00446.x · Cited by 20
“Lammers and Stapel (2009)(1) found that, when making moral judgments, individuals who had been induced to feel powerful preferred abstract, rule-based arguments more and outcome-based arguments less than people induced to feel powerless.”
BackgroundPreschool children's control of action outcomes
Freier, L., Cooper, R., & Denis Mareschal, B. (2015) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.12354 · Cited by 17
Measuring the allocation of attention in the Stroop task: evidence from eye movement patterns
Olk, B. (2011) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0405-9 · Cited by 17
“Recently, Kane and Engle (2003) have shown that working memory span is related to maintaining a goal in the word–colour Stroop task.”
BackgroundConstantinidou, F., Danos, M. A., Nelson, D., & Baker, S. (2011) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2010.525503 · Cited by 17
The flexibility of cognitive control: Age equivalence with experience guiding the way.
Cohen‐Shikora, E. R., Diede, N. T., & Bugg, J. M. (2018) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/pag0000280 · Cited by 17
“In a classic variant called the list-wide PC manipulation (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003; Lindsay & Jacoby, 1994; Logan, 1980; Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979; Logan, Zbrodoff, & Williamson, 1984; Lowe & Mitterer, 1982), mostly congruent (MC) or mostly incongruent (MI) lists of around 100 trials are presented.”
Burk, J. A. (2004) · Behavioural Processes · doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2004.08.009 · Cited by 17
Infant Perception and Cognition
Colombo, J. A., Brez, C. C., & Curtindale, L. M. (2012) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118133880.hop206003 · Cited by 17
How Do Subway Signs Affect Pedestrians’ Wayfinding Behavior through Visual Short-Term Memory?
Li, H., Xu, J., Zhang, X., & Ma, F. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13126866 · Cited by 17
Rosales, K. P., Snijder, J.-P., Conway, A. R. A., & Gonthier, C. (2021) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218211066410 · Cited by 16
“Because of the importance of cognitive control for WMC, many studies have investigated the relation between these two constructs and found that a high WMC is indeed associated with better performance in cognitive control tasks (e.g., Engle et al., 1999; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundCan Personalization or Creativity Reduce Banner Blindness?
Abedi, F., & Koslow, S. (2022) · Journal of Advertising Research · doi:10.2501/jar-2022-014 · Cited by 18
Bilingualism can cause enhanced monitoring and occasional delayed responses in a flanker task
Markiewicz, R., Mazaheri, A., & Krott, A. (2022) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.15863 · Cited by 21
“Specifically in conflict tasks, μ is a reflection of response conflict and conflict-resolving inhibitory control processes (Heathcote et al., 1991; Kane & Engle, 2003; Spieler et al., 2000; Zhou & Krott, 2018), whereas τ mirrors attentional control to maintain the task goal (Epstein et al., 2011;…”
BackgroundThe developmental trajectory of task-related frontal EEG theta/beta ratio in childhood
Chen, J., Xiao, Y., Xu, B., & Zhang, D. (2023) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2023.101233 · Cited by 16
“, Kirkwood, H., & Elliott, J. (2008). Evaluating the validity of the Automated Working Memory Assessment.”
InfluentialVossen, A. Y., Ross, V., Jongen, E. M. M., Ruiter, R. A. C., & Smulders, F. T. Y. (2015) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.12572 · Cited by 16
The interplay between executive control and motor functioning in Williams syndrome
Hocking, D. R., Thomas, D., Menant, J. C., Porter, M. A., Smith, S., Lord, S. R., & Cornish, K. M. (2013) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.12042 · Cited by 16
Egan, P. M., & Hirt, E. R. (2014) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167214565054 · Cited by 16
“Before computing either metric, we excluded trials with latencies less than 200 ms or greater than 2000 ms, as well as trials with latencies greater than three standard deviations above a participant’s mean response time (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
MethodInfluentialDoes Rumination Cause “Inhibitory” Deficits?
Roberts, H., Watkins, E. R., & Wills, A. J. (2016) · Psychopathology Review · doi:10.5127/pr.036914 · Cited by 19
“For example, the Stroop task is sensitive to individual differences in working memory span such that individuals low in working memory capacity make more errors and exhibit larger response latency interference effects (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundLynn, S. K., Ibagon, C., Bui, É., Palitz, S. A., Simon, N. M., & Barrett, L. F. (2015) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/emo0000111 · Cited by 16
“For example, accomplishing tasks in a context that requires inhibition of habitual or typical responses utilizes WMC (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Nayak, S., Salem, H. Z., & Tarullo, A. R. (2019) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100740 · Cited by 16
“Current behavioral measures of inhibitory control may elicit processes of interference suppression, conflict monitoring, and response inhibition to varying extents depending on their exact design (Kane and Engle, 2003; Tillman and Wiens, 2011).”
Yousef Pour, M., Masjoodi, S., Fooladi, M., Jalalvandi, M., Vosoughi, R., Afkham, B. V., & Khabiri, H. (2020) · Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering · doi:10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1174 · Cited by 16
“Hence, some attentional executive function mechanisms, such as interference resolution, response inhibition and individual’s processing speed can be investigated with Stroop test [6].”
BackgroundNagaraj, N. K., Magimairaj, B. M., & Schwartz, S. (2020) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-020-02056-5 · Cited by 16
Güldenpenning, I., Kunde, W., & Weigelt, M. (2020) · International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1612197x.2020.1854819 · Cited by 16
“Working memory correlates with performance in attention-demanding tasks (cf. Engle, 2002; Kane & Engle, 2002, 2003; Long & Prat, 2002).”
BackgroundChiang, E. S., Therriault, D. J., & Franks, B. A. (2009) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9052-6 · Cited by 16
“For instance, using a Stroop task, Kane and Engle (2003) found that low WMC individuals’ performance suffered given conditions that involved high congruence between word name and ink color but not under conditions of low congruence.”
MethodAdults’ Versus Children’s Performance on the Stroop Task: Insights From Ex-Gaussian Analysis
Fagot, D., Dirk, J., Ghisletta, P., & Ribaupierre, A. D. (2009) · Swiss Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1024/1421-0185.68.1.17 · Cited by 16
Ortells, J. J., de Fockert, J. W., Álvarez, N. R., & Fernández, S. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01239 · Cited by 16
Using Eye-Tracking for Visual Attention Feedback
Toreini, P., Langner, M., & Maedche, A. (2019) · Lecture notes in information systems and organisation · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28144-1_29 · Cited by 16
Serial Recall Predicts Vocoded Sentence Recognition Across Spectral Resolutions
Bosen, A. K., & Barry, M. F. (2020) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2020_jslhr-19-00319 · Cited by 15
“Equal proportions of each condition were tested, because the distribution of conditions can Bosen & B affect performance (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
MethodIndividual Differences in Language Processing: Electrophysiological Approaches
Boudewyn, M. A. (2015) · Language and Linguistics Compass · doi:10.1111/lnc3.12167 · Cited by 17
Reliability and Convergence of Conflict Effects
Whitehead, P. S., Brewer, G. A., & Blais, C. (2020) · Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000497 · Cited by 15
Stroop color and word test (SCWT): Normative data for the Lebanese adult population
Ktaiche, M., Fares, Y., & Abbas, L. A. (2021) · Applied Neuropsychology Adult · doi:10.1080/23279095.2021.1901101 · Cited by 15
“Previous literature has revealed the ability of the SCWT to measure cognitive functions such as selective attention, processing speed, working memory (Kane & Engle, 2003), cognitive flexibility (Jensen & Rohwer, 1966), and semantic activation (Strauss et al,, 2006).”
BackgroundSadık, E. Ş., Saraoğlu, H. M., Kabay, S. C., Tosun, M., Keskinkılıç, C., & Akdağ, G. (2021) · Signal Image and Video Processing · doi:10.1007/s11760-021-01992-5 · Cited by 15
Balleyer, A. H., & Fennis, B. M. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.685552 · Cited by 15
Chen, L., & Yeung, W. J. (2024) · Applied Developmental Science · doi:10.1080/10888691.2024.2307366 · Cited by 16
They can take a hint: Older adults effectively integrate memory cues during recognition.
Konkel, A., Selmeczy, D., & Dobbins, I. G. (2015) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/pag0000058 · Cited by 15
“…strategy, leading to the possibility that some criterion shifting studies may be more sensitive to goal neglect or distraction considerations (see Kane & Engle, 2003, for similar ideas in Stroop interference), which, like considerations of cognitive effort or behavioral inhibition, are well…”
BackgroundThe effect of schooling on basic cognition in selected nordic countries
Jonsson, B., Waling, M., Ólafsdóttir, A. S., Lagström, H., Wergedahl, H., Olsson, C., Fossgard, E., Holthe, A., Talvia, S. S., Gunnarsdóttir, I., et al. (2017) · Europe’s Journal of Psychology · doi:10.5964/ejop.v13i4.1339 · Cited by 18
When does higher working memory capacity help or hinder insight problem solving?
DeCaro, M. S. (2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315268118-5 · Cited by 15
Burger, L., Fay, S., Angel, L., Borella, E., Noiret, N., Plusquellec, P., & Taconnat, L. (2019) · Experimental Aging Research · doi:10.1080/0361073x.2019.1693013 · Cited by 15
“The performance in the Stroop task has been shown to vary as a function of an individual (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Gordon, A., Geddert, R., Hogeveen, J., Krug, M. K., Obhi, S. S., & Solomon, M. (2020) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-019-04355-9 · Cited by 14
Putting Effort Into Infant Cognition
Káldy, Z., & Blaser, E. (2020) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721420903015 · Cited by 14
“This is surprising given that working memory and the control of attention are intimately tied (Kane & Engle, 2003), and the use of the pupillometry in the study of memory has a rich history (Kahneman & Beatty, 1966).”
BackgroundSmoleń, T., & Chuderski, A. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01270 · Cited by 15
“…on antisaccades (Unsworth et al., 2004), produced smaller error rates in incongruent trials using a high-congruent version of the Stroop test (Kane and Engle, 2003) and the flanker task (Heits and Engle, 2007), as well as more effectively suppressed distractors in a dichotic listening task…”
MethodExecutive functions in kindergarteners with high levels of disruptive behaviours
Monette, S., Bigras, M., & Guay, M. (2015) · British Journal of Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjdp.12105 · Cited by 22
Affective processing in overwhelmed individuals: Strategic and task considerations
Kerns, J. G., & Berenbaum, H. (2009) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930902927664 · Cited by 15
“To increase response conflict, 2/3 of all trials were congruent (Carter et al., 2000; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Hong, H. J., Lee, J. B., Kim, J. S., Seo, W. S., Koo, B., Bai, D.-S., & Jeong, J. Y. (2010) · Psychiatry Investigation · doi:10.4306/pi.2010.7.3.177 · Cited by 15
Individual differences in working memory capacity and shooting behavior.
Brewer, G. A., Ball, B. H., & Ware, J. M. (2016) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.04.004 · Cited by 15
“As demonstrated y the Stroop task, working memory is only necessary when the nvironment presents conflicting task demands (Engle, 2002; ane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundLancaster, C. L., Tabet, N., & Rusted, J. M. (2016) · Neurobiology of Aging · doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.08.015 · Cited by 16
Exploring cognitive motor interference in multiple sclerosis by the visual Stroop test
Coghe, G., Pilloni, G., Zucca, E., Porta, M., Corona, F., Frau, J., Fenu, G., Lorefice, L., Marrosu, M. G., Pau, M., et al. (2018) · Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.msard.2018.02.026 · Cited by 15
Duplications and domain-generality.
Endress, A. D. (2019) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000213 · Cited by 15
Dayan, A., Berger, A., & Anholt, G. E. (2020) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291719003866 · Cited by 16
An experimental-differential investigation of cognitive complexity
Birney, D. P., & Bowman, D. B. (2009) · Cited by 15
Breaking a habit: A further role of the phonological loop in action control
Saeki, E., Baddeley, A., Hitch, G. J., & Saito, S. (2013) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-013-0320-y · Cited by 15
The effects of memory scanning on the late Nd and P300: An interference study
Singhal, A., & Fowler, B. (2005) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00275.x · Cited by 15
Sobel, K. V., Pickard, M. D., & Acklin, W. T. (2009) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.06.003 · Cited by 15
Multimedia Learning and Working Memory Capacity
Doolittle, P. E. (2009) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-158-2.ch002 · Cited by 15
“In this literature, attentional control is a component of working memory capacity (WMC; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Kane & Engle, 2003), that is, the ability to maintain information in working memory and to effectively retrieve task relevant information from long-term memory (Feldman…”
BackgroundEffect of Auditory Distraction on Working Memory, Attention Switching, and Listening Comprehension
Nagaraj, N. K. (2021) · Audiology Research · doi:10.3390/audiolres11020021 · Cited by 20
Cognition and lifeguard detection performance
Sharpe, B. T., Smith, M. S., Williams, S., Hampshire, A., Bălăeţ, M., Trender, W. R., Hellyer, P. J., Talbot, J., & Smith, J. (2023) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.4139 · Cited by 15
Predictors of Completion of Executive-Functioning Tasks in a Memory Clinic Dementia Sample
Enright, J., O’Connell, M. E., MacKinnon, S., & Morgan, D. (2015) · Applied Neuropsychology Adult · doi:10.1080/23279095.2014.992070 · Cited by 14
“For the incongruent trial of the Stroop, it was hypothesized that after controlling for dementia severity performance, tests of memory and tests of working memory and attention would predict completion (Bondi et al., 2002; Boone et al., 1998; Kane & Engle, 2003).”
MethodWorking Memory Capacity and Mental Rotation: Evidence for a Domain-General View
Pardo‐Vázquez, J. L., & Rey, J. F. (2012) · The Spanish Journal of Psychology · doi:10.5209/rev_sjop.2012.v15.n3.39381 · Cited by 14
“…dichotic listening task (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001), high-span identified antisaccade targets faster than low-span in a antisaccade task (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001) and highspan were faster or less error prone than low-span in a Stroop task (Kane & Engle, 2003; Long & Prat, 2002).”
BackgroundTraining attentional control in older adults
MacKay‐Brandt, A. (2011) · Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition · doi:10.1080/13825585.2011.568046 · Cited by 14
“Previous work has established working memory and response-distractor inhibition as two empirically derived constructs that represent aspects of executive function related to attentional control ( Kane & Engle, 2003 ; Miyake et al, 2000 ).”
BackgroundMethodIhne, J. L., Gallagher, N. M., Sullivan, M. E., Callicott, J. H., & Green, A. E. (2015) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.10.025 · Cited by 15
ERP correlates of the conflict level in the multi-response Stroop task
Chuderski, A., Senderecka, M., Kałamała, P., Kroczek, B., & Ociepka, M. (2016) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2016.08.041 · Cited by 15
Khatib, A. H., Hamdan‐Mansour, A. M., & Hani, M. A. B. (2017) · The Open Public Health Journal · doi:10.2174/1874944501710010215 · Cited by 15
“Social life and social relationship are one of the main determinants of the quality of life among older patients [29].”
BackgroundScrimin, S., Osler, G., Moscardino, U. M. M., & Masón, L. (2018) · Mind Brain and Education · doi:10.1111/mbe.12169 · Cited by 14
Individual differences in prospective memory
Ball, H., Vogel, A. S., & Brewer, G. A. (2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781351000154-8 · Cited by 14
“Based on these results, Kane and Engle (2003) argued that performance in the Stroop task is jointly determined by attentional functions such as goal maintenance and competition resolution, and that both of these functions are related to WMC.”
BackgroundIndividual Differences in Working Memory and the N2pc
Couperus, J. W., Lydic, K. O., Hollis, J. E., Roy, J. L., Lowe, A. R., Bukach, C. M., & Reed, C. L. (2021) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.620413 · Cited by 14
“Those with low working memory capacity should have less overall available working memory, thereby leading to reduced performance and/or greater condition interference (Kane and Engle, 2003; de Fockert, 2013; Shipstead et al., 2016).”
BackgroundWorking memory capacity estimates moderate value learning for outcome-irrelevant features
Ben-Artzi, I., Luria, R., & Shahar, N. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-21832-x · Cited by 11
Fluctuations in pre-trial attentional state and their influence on goal neglect
Nash Unsworth, A., & McMillan, B. D. (2014) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.03.003 · Cited by 13
“Prior research has suggested that proportion congruence manipulations in the Stroop and other tasks place high demands on goal maintenance (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Ikeda, Y., Okuzumi, H., & Kokubun, M. (2012) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2012.658364 · Cited by 16
“Although some researchers interpret error rates as an index of ability to maintain the tasks goal temporarily in a highly retrievable state (eg, Kane & Engle, 2003 ), others interpret them as an index of Prepotent Response Inhibition: Those less able to suppress distracting information are more prone to errors and are…”
Pauls, F., Petermann, F., & Lepach, A. C. (2014) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2014.915208 · Cited by 16
Extensive performance on the antisaccade task does not lead to negative transfer
Brewer, G. A., Spillers, G. J., McMillan, B. D., & Nash Unsworth, A. (2011) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0130-9 · Cited by 14
Nȩcka, E., & Lulewicz, A. (2016) · Polish Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1515/ppb-2016-0003 · Cited by 15
“Majority of relevant studies used complex span tasks as measures of working memory capacity, such as the OSPAN task (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2003; Turner & Engle, 1989).”
MethodBugg, J. M., & Diede, N. T. (2017) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.12.013 · Cited by 16
Variation in the use of cues to guide visual working memory
Robison, M. K., & Nash Unsworth, A. (2017) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-017-1335-4 · Cited by 14
Baranski, M. F. S., & Was, C. A. (2017) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0729-7 · Cited by 17
Performance while distracted: The effect of cognitive styles and working memory
Brown, S. G. U., Tenbrink, A. P., & LaMarre, G. (2018) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.025 · Cited by 15
Nayar, K., McKinney, W. S., Hogan, A. L., Martin, G. E., Valle, C. L., Sharp, K., Berry‐Kravis, E., Norton, E. S., Gordon, P. C., & Losh, M. C. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0219924 · Cited by 14
Schizophrenia patients show impaired response switching in saccade tasks
Franke, C., Reuter, B., Schulz, L., & Kathmann, N. (2007) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.06.006 · Cited by 14
The Effect of Delayed Responding on Stroop-Like Task Performance Among Preschoolers
Montgomery, D. E., & Fosco, W. D. (2012) · The Journal of Genetic Psychology · doi:10.1080/00221325.2011.583699 · Cited by 16
“A critical role for working memory seems plausible because differences in Stroop performance among adults are related to differences in working memory capacity (Kane & Engle, 2003 ) as are differences among children on various executive function (EF) tasks (Espy & Bull, 2005 ).”
Hsu, H.-L. (2021) · Lingua · doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103041 · Cited by 14
Impact of Long-Rope Jumping on Monoamine and Attention in Young Adults
Yamashita, M., & Yamamoto, T. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci11101347 · Cited by 13
“Since Stroop incongruent condition requires more attention and control of competitive responses [63], the higher uMHPG levels may be fast to respond to the Stroop incongruent effect.”
BackgroundMohapatra, B., & Dash, T. (2023) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2022_ajslp-22-00119 · Cited by 13
Kouwenhoven, M., & Machado, L. (2023) · Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition · doi:10.1080/13825585.2023.2214348 · Cited by 13
“However, the lack of a relationship in young adults contrasts with past research linking superior verbal WM performance to less interference from incompatible Stroop words in university students (Hutchison, 2011; Kane & Engle, 2003; Long & Prat, 2002; Meier & Kane, 2013).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialA mindful approach to controlling intrusive thoughts
Ashton, S. M., Sambeth, A., & Quaedflieg, C. W. E. M. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-37447-9 · Cited by 16
Bouman, P. M., van Dam, M., Jonkman, L. E., Steenwijk, M. D., Schoonheim, M. M., Geurts, J. J. G., & Hulst, H. E. (2024) · Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1007/s00415-024-12185-8 · Cited by 13
Pritchard, V. E., & Neumann, E. (2011) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.124.4.0405 · Cited by 14
Loosli, S. V., Falquez, R., Unterrainer, J. M., Weiller, C., Rahm, B., & Kaller, C. P. (2015) · International Psychogeriatrics · doi:10.1017/s1041610215001519 · Cited by 14
“Performance in this task has also been shown to be related to WM capacity (Kane and Engle, 2003) and to be improved in older adults following a WM training (Borella et al ., 2010).”
Individual differences in working memory capacity
Mall, J. T. (2013) · Cited by 14
The Predation Game: Does dividing attention affect patterns of human foraging?
Thornton, I. M., Tagu, J., Zdravković, S., & Kristjansson, A. K. (2021) · Cognitive Research Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-021-00299-w · Cited by 14
“As we mentioned in the Discussion of Experiment 1, we believe that exploring how phasic changes in arousal/alertness (Esterman & Rothlein, 2019; Kane & Engle, 2003; Petersen et al., 2017; Unsworth & Robison, 2017) affect target template switching during foraging could be a very useful direction for…”
BackgroundStrategies that reduce Stroop interference
Pálfi, B., Parris, B. A., Collins, A. F., & Dienes, Z. P. (2022) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.202136 · Cited by 16
“[9,45]) and it is embedded in many of the cognitive control models (e.”
BackgroundBürki, A., & Madec, S. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0001098 · Cited by 13
“Kane and Engle (2003), for instance, described two attentional mechanisms.”
BackgroundCovey, L., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2022) · Second language Research · doi:10.1177/02676583221116039 · Cited by 13
“…correct information during interference, and inhibiting habitual responses, capabilities arguably involved in prediction, a process that entails generating and maintaining a predicted element while simultaneously processing the bottom-up input during comprehension (e.g. Kane and Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundResultEgami, C., Yamashita, Y., Tada, Y., Anai, C., Mukasa, A., Yuge, K., Nagamitsu, S., & Matsuishi, T. (2015) · Brain & development (Tokyo. 1979) · doi:10.1016/j.braindev.2015.02.003 · Cited by 11
“A study investigating the relationship between WM capacity and response inhibition tasks showed better performance by the high WM capacity group than the low group in antisaccade tasks and Stroop tasks, which involve inhibiting dominant reactions [5].”
Effect of memory load on eye movement control: A study using the reading span test
Azuma, M., Minamoto, T., Yaoi, K., Osaka, M., & Osaka, N. (2014) · Journal of Eye Movement Research · doi:10.16910/jemr.7.5.3 · Cited by 13
Robison, M. K., McGuirk, W. P., & Nash Unsworth, A. (2017) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/bne0000202 · Cited by 14
The Influence of Executive Functions on Phonemic Processing in Children Who Do and Do Not Stutter
Sasisekaran, J., & Basu, S. (2017) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2017_jslhr-s-17-0033 · Cited by 14
“Of these, the central executive system is domain-general, applicable to all of the subsystems, and is thought to be actively involved in updating relevant information in working memory during task performance (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
BackgroundFournier, L. R., Hansen, D., Stubblefield, A. M., & Dongen, H. P. A. V. (2018) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-018-1054-z · Cited by 13
The implementation of expectancy-based strategic processes is delayed in normal aging
Noguera, C., Fernández, S., Álvarez, D., Carmona, E., Marı́-Beffa, P., & Ortells, J. J. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0214322 · Cited by 13
Zink, N., Bensmann, W., Arning, L., Colzato, L. S., Stock, A., & Beste, C. (2019) · The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1093/ijnp/pyz024 · Cited by 12
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
