Dissociating distractor-filtering at encoding and during maintenance.
Open accessAbstract
The effectiveness of distractor-filtering is a potentially important determinant of working memory capacity (WMC). However, a distinction between the contributions of distractor-filtering at WM encoding as opposed to filtering during maintenance has not been made and the assumption is that these rely on the same mechanism. Within 2 experiments, 1 conducted in the laboratory with 21 participants, and the other played as a game on smartphones (n = 3,247) we measure WMC without distractors, and present distractors during encoding or during the delay period of a WM task to determine performance associated with distraction at encoding and during maintenance. Despite differences in experimental setting and paradigm design between the 2 studies, we show a unique contribution to WMC from both encoding and delay distractor performance in both experiments, while controlling for performance in the absence of distraction. Thus, within 2 separate experiments, 1 involving an extremely large cohort of 3,247 participants, we show a dissociation between encoding and delay distractor-filtering, indicating that separate mechanisms may contribute to WMC.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Wii Tests, Shapebuilder, The Great Brain Experiment, BAM-COG, and Tap the Hedgehog produced output measures/scores that correlated fairly well with their non-gamelike counterparts.
“Wii Tests [21], Shapebuilder [37], The Great Brain Experiment [32,39], BAM-COG [28], and Tap the Hedgehog [27] were all found to produce output measures/scores that correlated fairly well with their non–gamelike counterparts”
From Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy (2016) · cites this paper as [39]
Sample correlations from some simpler validation studies suggest intertask correlations of 0.45-0.60.
“However, sample correlations from some of the simpler validation studies suggest intertask correlations of 0.45-0.60 [28,37,39,63].”
From Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy (2016) · cites this paper as [39]
Data collected from two very different gamified and nongamified tasks could fit similar models of working memory capacity.
“McNab and Dolan showing that data collected from 2 very different gamified and nongamified tasks could fit similar models of working memory capacity.”
From Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy (2016) · cites this paper as [39]
The Great Brain Experiment and GAME both showed gamelike tasks to be appropriate for measuring and training working memory.
“The Great Brain Experiment [39] and GAME [46] both showed gamelike tasks to be appropriate for measuring and training working memory.”
From Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy (2016) · cites this paper as [39]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 49
- Authors
- McNab, F., & Dolan, R. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
- Corresponding author
- McNab, Fiona
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
- Published
- 2014-06
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 960-967
- ISSN
- 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1277
- PMC
- PMC4035130
- OpenAlex
- W2047632905
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 7.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (091826/Z/10/Z, 091593/Z/10/Z, 098362/Z/12/Z)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- distractor filtering, working memory capacity, working memory encoding, working memory maintenance, delay period, distraction, mobile gaming
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Ascorbic Acid, Attention, Benserazide, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Levodopa, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Perceptual Masking, Reaction Time, Placebo Effect, Control Groups, Cell Phone, Sensory Gating, Young Adult
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.
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
