Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: limits on long-term memory retrieval.

By M. Kane, R. Engle. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition, 2000

714 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/15dbc8a57195aff6aab0b366003a218ea511b1c0

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

Citations in the corpus

Interference control, working memory capacity, and cognitive abilities: A latent variable analysis (2010, background): “1) Proportion correct on the first trial for each block provided an index of memory abilities in the absence of strong proactive interference, and 2) proportional proactive interference effect associated with each individual within a category block (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2000).”
Stereotype threat and sport: can athletic performance be threatened? (2004, background): “Steele and Aronson coined the term stereotype threat to describe this phenomenon and conducted a series of empirical studies to examine it.”
The Relationship Between Working Memory Capacity and Executive Functioning: Evidence for a Common Executive Attention Construct (2010, methodology): “…retrieval process, whereas WMC was unrelated to familiarity, which is a retrieval process that does not require controlled attention (see also Delaney & Sahakyan, 2007; Kane & Engle, 2000; McCabe & Smith, 2002; McCabe et al., 2007; Rosen & Engle, 1998; Watson, Bunting, Poole, & Conway, 2005).”
A Comparison of Different Pre-Performance Routines as Possible Choking Interventions (2010, background): “In a high-pressure situation, working memory and task-focused attention become disrupted, leading to a decrement in performance (Kane & Engle, 2000).”
Automatic-heuristic and executive-analytic processing during reasoning: Chronometric and dual-task considerations. (2006, methodology): “The tapping procedure was based on that of Kane and Engle (2000).”
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND WORKING MEMORY CAPACITY IN INTERACTION-DRIVEN L2 LEARNING (2012, result): “…can be found in previous research on WMC in cognitive psychology, which indicates that WM span differences arise only when a given task is cognitively challenging, and thus require cognitive control of attentional resources (e.g., Conway & Engle, 1994 ; Kane & Engle, 2000 ; Rosen & Engle, 1998 ).”
Working memory and everyday conditional reasoning: Retrieval and inhibition of stored counterexamples (2005, methodology): “Consistent with the inhibition hypothesis, the load impact on MP, F(1, 95)=4.84, MSE=2.04, p5 .035, and MT, F(1, 95)=8.71, MSE=4.32, p5 .004, differed for low and high spans.”