The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Increases in Intrusion Errors and Working Memory Deficit of Poor Comprehenders
Abstract
This study tests the hypothesis that the ability to inhibit already processed and actually irrelevant information could influence performance in the listening span test (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980) and have a crucial role in reading comprehension. In two experiments, the listening span test and a new working memory test were given to two groups of young adults, poor and good comprehenders, matched for logical reasoning ability. In Experiment 1, the poor comprehenders had a significantly lower performance in the listening span test associated to a higher number of intrusions--that is, recalled words that, in spite of being in sentence form, were not placed in the last position. In Experiment 2, a new working memory test was devised in order to analyse more effectively the occurrence of intrusions. Subjects were required to listen to a growing series of strings of animal and non-animal words. While listening, they had to detect when an animal word occurred, and at the end of each series they had to recall the last word of each string. The poor comprehenders obtained a significantly lower performance in the memory task and made a higher number of intrusions, particularly of animal words.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
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
Cross-National Comparisons of Developmental Dyslexia in Italy and the United States
Lindgren, S. D., de Renzi, E., & Richman, L. C. (1985) · Child Development · doi:10.2307/1130460 · Cited by 219
Cited by
The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis.
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.101 · Cited by 2,309
Bull, R., Espy, K. A., & Wiebe, S. A. (2008) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/87565640801982312 · Cited by 1,544
Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1207/s15326942dn1903_3 · Cited by 1,501
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31 · Cited by 1,496
Executive functions and achievements in school: Shifting, updating, inhibition, and working memory
St Clair-Thompson, H. L., & Gathercole, S. E. (2006) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470210500162854 · Cited by 1,278
Metadata
- Authors
- Cornoldi, R. D. B. P. P. F. P. C.
- Venue
- The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1998-05-01
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 305-320
- ISSN
- 0272-4987 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0740
- OpenAlex
- W2106303781
- Cited by
- 262
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Increases in Intrusion Errors and Working Memory Deficit of Poor Comprehenders. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/027249898391648
- The paper
- Cornoldi, R. D. B. P. P. F. P. C. (1998). Increases in Intrusion Errors and Working Memory Deficit of Poor Comprehenders. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A. https://doi.org/10.1080/027249898391648
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.