Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 241

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Resource Account of Inhibition

Engle, Randall W, Conway, Andrew R A, Tuholski, Stephen W., Shisler, Rebecca J·1995·Psychological Science

Abstract

In a letter-naming task, a letter will be named more slowly if it was a distractor on the previous trial This negative priming effect has been instrumental in renewed interest in inhibition The present research explored whether inhibition is a result of controlled attention When the naming task was performed under a mental work load, negative priming was diminished as work load increased This finding suggests that inhibition is a product of controlled resources and that group differences in inhibition may result from differences in controlled attentional resources, not from inefficient inhibitory mechanisms

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00318.x

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 241

Metadata

Authors
Engle, R. W., Conway, A. R. A., Tuholski, S. W., & Shisler, R. J.
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
1995-03
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
122-125
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W1981524662
Cited by
241
References
0
FWCI
3.53
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: A Resource Account of Inhibition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00318.x
The paper
Engle, R. W., Conway, A. R. A., Tuholski, S. W., & Shisler, R. J. (1995). A Resource Account of Inhibition. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00318.x

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.