The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Working Memory Capacity as Executive Attention
Abstract
Performance on measures of working memory (WM) capacity predicts performance on a wide range of real-world cognitive tasks. I review the idea that WM capacity (a) is separable from short-term memory, (b) is an important component of general fluid intelligence, and (c) represents a domain-free limitation in ability to control attention. Studies show that individual differences in WM capacity are reflected in performance on antisaccade, Stroop, and dichotic-listening tasks. WM capacity, or executive attention, is most important under conditions in which interference leads to retrieval of response tendencies that conflict with the current task.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“inhibiting automatic attention -keeping attractive but task-irrelevant stimuli from interfering with the contents of consciousness -occupies attentional resources (e.g., Engle 2002).”
From Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity (2017) · cites this paper as Engle 2002
In the citing paper
“For example, according to one theory variations in fluid intelligence reflect to a large degree variations in working memory capacity (Engle, 2002; but see Heitz et al., 2006).”
From Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence From a Meta-Analytic Review (2016) · cites this paper as Engle, 2002
In the citing paper
“Crucially, the limited capacity of these domaingeneral resources dictates that using attentional resources for one cognitive process or task leaves fewer available for other tasks; in other words, occupying cognitive resources reduces available cognitive capacity.”
From Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity (2017) · cites this paper as Engle 2002
In the citing paper
“Because the same fi nite pool of attentional resources supports both attentional control and other cognitive processes, resources recruited to inhibit automatic attention to one ' s phone are made unavailable for other tasks, and performance on these tasks will suffer.”
From Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity (2017) · cites this paper as Engle 2002
Citations
Cites
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60452-1 · Cited by 9,860
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
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-citationWhat 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-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- 10.1080/741940997 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.169 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.336 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0022-5371(62)80023-1 · DOI
- 10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–114 of 114
Ward, A. R., Alarcón, G., Nigg, J. T., & Musser, E. D. (2015) · Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10802-015-0054-3 · Cited by 32
Pointing and tracing enhance computer-based learning
Ginns, P., & King, V. (2021) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-021-09997-0 · Cited by 31
Tarle, S. J., Alderson, R. M., Patros, C. H. G., Lea, S. E., Hudec, K. L., & Arrington, E. F. (2017) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/neu0000364 · Cited by 29
The Vigilance, Orienting, and Executive Attention Networks in 4-Year-Old Children
Hrabok, M., Kerns, K. A., & Müller, U. (2007) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/13825580600977224 · Cited by 29
Ginns, P., Hu, F., & Bobis, J. (2020) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3732 · Cited by 27
Individual differences in updating are not related to reasoning ability and working memory capacity.
Frischkorn, G. T., von Bastian, C. C., Souza, A. S., & Oberauer, K. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0001141 · Cited by 25
Task Load Estimation and Mediation Using Psycho-physiological Measures
Rajan, R., Selker, T., & Lane, I. (2016) · Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/2856767.2856769 · Cited by 23
Visuospatial working memory training facilitates visually-aided explicit sequence learning
Chan, J. S. Y., Wu, Q., Liang, D., & Yan, J. H. (2015) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.09.008 · Cited by 21
Does the Brain Drain Effect Really Exist? A Meta-Analysis
Böttger, T., Poschik, M., & Zierer, K. (2023) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs13090751 · Cited by 21
Dekkers, T. J., Rapport, M. D., Calub, C. A., Eckrich, S. J., & Irurita, C. (2021) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2020.1793924 · Cited by 19
Kamradt, J. M., Nigg, J. T., Friderici, K. H., & Nikolas, M. A. (2017) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579416000195 · Cited by 19
Which “working memory” are we talking about? Complex span tasks versus N-back
Burgoyne, A. P., Frank, D. J., & Macnamara, B. N. (2025) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-024-02622-0 · Cited by 20
Liu, H., Qi, Y., Zhang, H., Liang, Y., Lu, L., Zhou, J., Zhang, T., & Yu, X. (2023) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2022.105603 · Cited by 10
Evaluating the effects of brief mindfulness practice on attentional control and episodic memory
Namias, J. M., & Huff, M. J. (2024) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2024.2381872 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Engle, R. W.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Engle, Randall W.
- ORCID
- Engle, Randall W.
- Venue
- Current Directions in Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-02
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19-23
- ISSN
- 0963-7214 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8721
- OpenAlex
- W2153432403
- Cited by
- 2,507
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 102 · 2025: 85 · 2024: 105 · 2023: 125 · 2022: 117 · 2021: 152 · 2020: 162 · 2019: 149 · 2018: 129 · 2017: 144 · 2016: 145 · 2015: 151 · 2014: 148 · 2013: 122 · 2012: 132
- FWCI
- 45.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Directions in Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- 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
- working memory capacity, executive attention, short-term memory, fluid intelligence, individual differences, antisaccade task, Stroop task, dichotic listening, interference, response tendencies, attentional control
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
