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
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-0626 · Cited by 4,726
Attention to Action: Willed and Automatic Control of Behavior
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986) · Consciousness and Self-Regulation · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-0629-1_1 · Cited by 4,455
From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure
Shallice, T. (1988) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511526817 · Cited by 4,072
MacDonald, A. W., Cohen, J. D., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.288.5472.1835 · Cited by 3,666
Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60041-9 · Cited by 3,456
Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach.
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309 · Cited by 3,078
Self-citationWorking Memory Capacity as Executive Attention
Engle, R. W. (2002) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00160 · Cited by 2,507
Self-citationModels of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999) · Cited by 2,404
Is working memory capacity task dependent?
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/0749-596x(89)90040-5 · Cited by 2,299
Self-citationKane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196323 · Cited by 2,229
Self-citationCohen, J. D., Dunbar, K. N., & McClelland, J. L. (1990) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.97.3.332 · Cited by 2,192
DEFICITS IN STRATEGY APPLICATION FOLLOWING FRONTAL LOBE DAMAGE IN MAN
SHALLICE, T., & BURGESS, P. W. (1991) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/114.2.727 · Cited by 2,017
The prefontral cortex and cognitive control
Miller, E. K. (2000) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/35036228 · Cited by 2,016
Psychology of Learning and Motivation
Bower, G. H. (1975) · Cited by 1,839
Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity?!
Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1990) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(05)80012-1 · Cited by 1,810
Categorization of action slips
Norman, D. A. (1981) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.88.1.1 · Cited by 1,736
Context, cortex, and dopamine: A connectionist approach to behavior and biology in schizophrenia.
Cohen, J. D., & Servan‐Schreiber, D. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.45 · Cited by 1,513
Pardo, J. V., Pardo, P. J., Janer, K. W., & Raichle, M. E. (1990) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.87.1.256 · Cited by 1,495
Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII
Monsell, S., & Driver, J. (2000) · UCL Discovery (University College London) · Cited by 1,451
A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity.
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.169 · Cited by 1,414
Self-citationAttention in Dichotic Listening: Affective Cues and the Influence of Instructions
Moray, N. P. (1959) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470215908416289 · Cited by 1,398
Consciousness and Self-Regulation
SCHWARTZ, G. E. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (1978) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-2571-0 · Cited by 1,370
Primary and secondary saccades to goals defined by instructions
Hallett, P. E. (1978) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/0042-6989(78)90218-3 · Cited by 1,262
Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999) · Models of Working Memory · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174909.007 · Cited by 1,195
Self-citationSpence, S. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7024.193 · Cited by 1,182
Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., Bunting, M. F., Therriault, D. J., & Minkoff, S. R. B. (2002) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(01)00096-4 · Cited by 1,108
Consciousness and self-regulation : advances in research and theory
SCHWARTZ, G. E. R., Shapiro, D. L., & Davidson, R. J. (1976) · Plenum Press eBooks · Cited by 1,015
Perret, E. (1974) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/0028-3932(74)90047-5 · Cited by 1,007
Dempster, F. N. (1992) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/0273-2297(92)90003-k · Cited by 993
The stroop color-word test: A review
Jensen, A. R., & Rohwer, W. D. (1966) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/0001-6918(66)90004-7 · Cited by 958
Intelligence and the Frontal Lobe: The Organization of Goal-Directed Behavior
Duncan, J., Emslie, H., Williams, P., Johnson, R., & Freer, C. (1996) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1996.0008 · Cited by 902
The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity
Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196169 · Cited by 875
Investigations of the functional anatomy of attention using the stroop test
Bench, C. J., Frith, C., Grasby, P. M., Friston, K. J., Paulesu, E., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Dolan, R. J. (1993) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/0028-3932(93)90147-r · Cited by 833
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037//0278-7393.26.2.336 · Cited by 732
Self-citationMicro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles
Schneider, W. (1988) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03203833 · Cited by 729
Cohen, J. D., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Servan‐Schreiber, D. (1999) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-843x.108.1.120 · Cited by 695
MacLeod, C. M., & MacDonald, P. A. (2000) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01530-8 · Cited by 694
Spieler, D. H., Balota, D. A., & Faust, M. E. (1996) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.22.2.461 · Cited by 687
The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder.
Roediger, H. L., & Crowder, R. G. (2001) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/10394-000 · Cited by 657
An ERP study of the temporal course of the Stroop color-word interference effect
Liotti, M., Woldorff, M. G., Perez, R., & Mayberg, H. S. (2000) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(99)00106-2 · Cited by 653
Working-memory capacity explains reasoning ability—and a little bit more
Süß, H., Oberauer, K., Wittmann, W. W., Wilhelm, O., & Schulze, R. (2002) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(01)00100-3 · Cited by 638
Individual differences in working memory and comprehension: A test of four hypotheses.
Engle, R. W., Cantor, J., & Carullo, J. J. (1992) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.972 · Cited by 626
Self-citationLogan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03197535 · Cited by 599
Attention : selection, awareness, and control : a tribute to Donald Broadbent
Baddeley, A., & Weiskrantz, L. (1993) · Clarendon Press eBooks · Cited by 573
Analysis of response time distributions: An example using the Stroop task.
Heathcote, A., Popiel, S. J., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (1991) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.340 · Cited by 554
Gopher, D., & Koriat, A. (1999) · Cited by 550
Working memory and retrieval: A resource-dependent inhibition model.
Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (1994) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.123.4.354 · Cited by 538
Self-citationFluid intelligence after frontal lobe lesions
Duncan, J., Burgess, P., & Emslie, H. (1995) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/0028-3932(94)00124-8 · Cited by 537
Prefrontal cognitive processes: Working memory and inhibition in the antisaccade task.
Roberts, R. J., Hager, L. D., & Heron, C. (1994) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.123.4.374 · Cited by 515
The multiple faces of working memory
Oberauer, K., Süß, H., Wilhelm, O., & Wittman, W. (2003) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(02)00115-0 · Cited by 449
On the Control of Control: The Role of Dopamine in Regulating Prefrontal Function and Working Memory
(2000) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1481.003.0044 · Cited by 445
Attention: selection, awareness, and control.
Neidermeyer, E. (1994) · Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/0013-4694(94)90076-0 · Cited by 444
Spieler, D. H., Balota, D. A., & Faust, M. E. (1996) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.22.2.461 · Cited by 414
Working memory and retrieval: A resource-dependent inhibition model.
Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (1994) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.123.4.354 · Cited by 394
Self-citationAn interactive framework for examining prefrontal cognitive processes
Roberts, R. J., & Pennington, B. F. (1996) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/87565649609540642 · Cited by 392
Color-Word Matching Stroop Task: Separating Interference and Response Conflict
Zysset, S., Müller, K., Lohmann, G., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2001) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2000.0665 · Cited by 386
Simple and complex word spans as measures of working memory capacity.
la Pointe, L. B., & Engle, R. W. (1990) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.6.1118 · Cited by 347
Self-citationExpressive writing can increase working memory capacity.
Klein, K., & Boals, A. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.130.3.520 · Cited by 343
Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference.
Lindsay, D. S., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.20.2.219 · Cited by 337
A Biologically Based Computational Model of Working Memory
O’Reilly, R. C., Braver, T. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174909.014 · Cited by 327
Working Memory Capacity and Suppression
Rosen, V. M., & Engle, R. W. (1998) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2590 · Cited by 322
Self-citationAn Intention-Activation Account of Residual Switch Costs
de Jong, R., Monsell, S., & Driver, J. (2000) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1481.003.0024 · Cited by 312
Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity: More Evidence for a General Capacity Theory
Conway, A. R. A. (1996) · Memory · doi:10.1080/741940997 · Cited by 309
Attention, intelligence, and the frontal lobes.
Duncan, J. (1995) · Cited by 305
Attention : selection, awareness, and control : a tribute to Donald Broadbent
Baddeley, A., & Weiskrantz, L. (1993) · Clarendon Press eBooks · Cited by 302
Are Executive Function Tests Dependent on Working Memory Capacity?
Lehto, J. E. (1996) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/713755616 · Cited by 302
Working memory capacity and strategy use
McNamara, D. S., & Scott, J. L. (2001) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03195736 · Cited by 296
The predictability of saccadic latency in a novel voluntary oculomotor task
Hallett, P. E., & Adams, B. (1980) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/0042-6989(80)90019-x · Cited by 291
Wood, N. L., & Cowan, N. (1995) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.255 · Cited by 290
Strategy training and working memory task performance
Turley-Ames, K. (2003) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/s0749-596x(03)00095-0 · Cited by 289
Expressive writing can increase working memory capacity.
Klein, K., & Boals, A. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.520 · Cited by 288
Event-related neural activity associated with the Stroop task
West, R., & Alain, C. (1999) · Cognitive Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0926-6410(99)00017-8 · Cited by 271
Jensen, A. R. (1965) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/0001-6918(65)90024-7 · Cited by 270
Inhibitory processes: A negleted dimension of intelligence
Dempster, F. N. (1991) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0160-2896(91)90028-c · Cited by 235
West, R. L., & Alain, C. (2000) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0006-8993(00)02530-0 · Cited by 226
Ericsson, K. A., & Delaney, P. F. (1999) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174909.011 · Cited by 226
Thought suppression, intelligence, and working memory capacity
Brewin, C. R., & Beaton, A. (2002) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(01)00127-9 · Cited by 219
Regulation of blastocyst formation
Andrew, J. W. (2001) · Frontiers in bioscience · doi:10.2741/watson · Cited by 210
Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference.
Lindsay, D. S., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20.2.219 · Cited by 206
Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task.
Lowe, D. G., & Mitterer, J. O. (1982) · Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie · doi:10.1037/h0080661 · Cited by 202
de Jong, R., Berendsen, E., & Cools, R. (1999) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00012-8 · Cited by 195
Working memory and human cognition
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-3597 · Cited by 193
Taylor, F. B., & Russo, J. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1097/00004714-200104000-00015 · Cited by 189
Perlstein, W. M., Carter, C. S., Barch, D. M., & Baird, J. W. (1998) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/0894-4105.12.3.414 · Cited by 180
What is working memory capacity?
Engle, R. W. (2004) · The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder. · doi:10.1037/10394-016 · Cited by 174
Self-citationMacleod, C. M. (1998) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03201133 · Cited by 166
Spatial working memory deficits and clinical symptoms in schizophrenia: a 4-month follow-up study
Park, S., Püschel, J., Sauter, B. H., Rentsch, M., & Hell, D. (1999) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s0006-3223(98)00370-9 · Cited by 165
Working memory and Stroop interference: An individual differences investigation
Long, D. L., & Prat, C. S. (2002) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03195290 · Cited by 165
Who is Likely to Acquire Programming Skills?
Shute, V. J. (1991) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.2190/vqjd-t1yd-5wvb-rypj · Cited by 162
Working memory or working attention
Baddeley, A. (1993) · Cited by 157
Attraction, Distraction and Action - Multiple Perspectives on Attentional Capture
(2001) · Advances in psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(01)x8001-1 · Cited by 154
Lunner, K., Werthem, E. H., Thompson, J. K., Paxton, S. J., McDonald, F. E. J., & Halvarsson, K. (2000) · International Journal of Eating Disorders · doi:10.1002/1098-108x(200012)28:4 · Cited by 153
Levels of selective attention revealed through analyses of response time distributions.
Spieler, D. H., Balota, D. A., & Faust, M. E. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.26.2.506 · Cited by 151
The effect of memory load on negative priming: An individual differences investigation
Conway, A. R. A., Tuholski, S. W., Shisler, R. J., & Engle, R. W. (1999) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03201233 · Cited by 149
Self-citationIndividual differences in working memory capacity and enumeration
Tuholski, S. W., Engle, R. W., & Baylis, G. C. (2001) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03196399 · Cited by 142
Self-citationWorking Memory and Retrieval: An Inhibition-Resource Approach
Engle, R. W. (1996) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195100990.003.0004 · Cited by 130
Self-citationThe reliability and stability of the turner and Engle working memory task
Klein, K., & Fiss, W. H. (1999) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03200722 · Cited by 117
Stroop-type interference: Congruity effects in color naming with typewritten responses.
Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1998) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.978 · Cited by 112
Adult age differences in goal activation and goal maintenance
de Jong, R. (2001) · The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/09541440126238 · Cited by 110
A Subgroup Analysis of Working Memory in Children with Reading Disabilities
Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2001) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/002221940103400305 · Cited by 105
Target Detection Deficits in Frontal Lobectomy
Richer, F., Décary, A., Lapierre, M. F., Rouleau, I., Bouvier, G., & Saint-Hilaire, J. M. (1993) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1006/brcg.1993.1016 · Cited by 75
The transient nature of executive control processes in younger and older adults
West, R. (2001) · The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/09541440042000232 · Cited by 64
Buckley, T. C., Blanchard, E. B., & Hickling, E. J. (2002) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1023/a:1013897805918 · Cited by 61
Frontal Tests Do Not Detect Frontal Infarctions after Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysm
Ahola, K., Vilkki, J. S., & Servo, A. (1996) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1006/brcg.1996.0021 · Cited by 60
Evidence for the Transient Nature of a Neural System Supporting Goal-directed Action
West, R. L. (2000) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/10.8.748 · Cited by 51
Goal weighting and the choice of behaviour in a complex world
DUNCAN, J. (1990) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139008925331 · Cited by 45
Intelligence test performance and the delay function of the ego.
Spivack, G., Levine, M., & Sprigle, H. A. (1959) · Journal of Consulting Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0041519 · Cited by 42
Automatic Influences as Accessibility Bias in Memory and Stroop Tasks: Toward a Formal Model
Jacoby, L. L., Brian Mcelree, A., & Trainham, T. N. (1999) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1480.003.0024 · Cited by 41
14 Capacity, Control and Conflict: An Individual Differences Perspective on Attentional Capture
Conway, A. R. A., & Kane, M. J. (2001) · Advances in psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(01)80016-9 · Cited by 36
Self-citationSelection of input and goal in the control of behaviour.
Duncan, J. S. (1993) · Cited by 36
Cognitive bias, emotion, and somatic complaints in a normal sample
Lundh, L., Wikström, J., & Westerlund, J. (2001) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/0269993004200204 · Cited by 29
Complexity as a reflection of the dimensionality of a task
Spilsbury, G. (1992) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0160-2896(92)90024-l · Cited by 25
Stroop process dissociations: Reply to Hillstrom and Logan (1997).
Trainham, T. N., Lindsay, D. S., & Jacoby, L. L. (1997) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.23.5.1579 · Cited by 21
Lehto, O. (1996) · Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung · doi:10.1515/dmvm-1996-0418 · Cited by 1
Working Memory Capacity, Visual Attention Allocation, and Exogenous Cues
Bleckley, M. K., & Engle, R. W. (2001) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e413802005-493 · Cited by 1
Self-citation
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
Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196772 · Cited by 2,882
“... resisting the attention capture of an exogenous cue in the antisaccade task (Kane et al., 2001; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004), (2) have difficulty constraining their attention to discontiguous regions of space (Bleckley, Durso, Crutchfield, Engle, & Khanna, 2004), (3) are slower to constrain their focus of att…”
BackgroundSelf-citationExecutive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework.
Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., & Smith, I. M. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31 · Cited by 2,695
An automated version of the operation span task
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03192720 · Cited by 1,861
“Indeed, beginning with the work of Daneman and Carpenter (1980), WM span tasks have been shown to predict everything from reading comprehension (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980) to performance on the Stroop task ( Kane & Engle, 2003 ).”
BackgroundSelf-citationFriedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2017) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.023 · Cited by 1,834
Load Theory of Selective Attention and Cognitive Control
Lavie, N., Hirst, A., de Fockert, J. W., & Viding, E. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.339 · Cited by 1,812
“Kane and Engle (2003) showed that lowspan subjects make more errors of responding to a distracting (low probability; see Logan, 1980) incongruent word in the Stroop task than do high-span subjects, again suggesting that high-span subjects may be better able to ignore irrelevant yet salient…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-70
- ISSN
- 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2222
- OpenAlex
- W2118932991
- Cited by
- 1,725
- References
- 122
- Citations by year
- 2026: 53 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 93 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 84 · 2016: 103 · 2015: 94 · 2014: 102 · 2013: 92 · 2012: 115
- FWCI
- 18.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- libres.uncg.edu
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Keywords
- working memory capacity, Stroop interference, executive function, goal neglect, response competition, task sets, selective attention, goal maintenance, individual differences, reaction time (psychology), incongruent trials
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attention, Competitive Behavior, Goals, Humans, Memory, Psychological Tests, Random Allocation, Reaction Time
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
