Working Memory Capacity and Attention Network Test Performance

244 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Lapses in sustained attention and their relation to executive control and fluid abilities: An individual differences investigation (2010, background): “…which have demonstrated links between measures of WMC and other measures of executive control such as the antisaccade (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Unsworth et al., 2004), Stroop (Kane & Engle, 2003; Long & Prat, 2002), and flanker (Heitz & Engle, 2007; Redick & Engle, 2006) tasks.”
Measuring Working Memory Capacity With Automated Complex Span Tasks (2012, methodology): “Test-retest reliabilities Operation (N = 78) Symmetry (N = 138) Reading (N = 138) Absolute score .77 .62 .76 Partial score .83 .77 .82 European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2012; Vol. 28(3):164–171 © 2012 Hogrefe Publishing”
Does working memory training generalize (2010, background): “High WMC participants are less likely to be affected by the outer items (Redick & Engle, 2006) but only after attention has been given ample time to engage (Heitz & Engle, 2007).”
Enhancing attention through training (2015, background): “Limitations in the reliability and utility of the ANT, especially for applied research, have been discussed [9].”
Role of Working‐Memory Capacity in Cognitive Control (2010, background): “Redick and Engle (2006) tested high- and low-WMC individuals on the ANT.”