Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference.

By M. Kane, R. Engle. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 2003

1,789 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b2d49527d3f9ec780faa4dd4b733b7c7b74dcfb6

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

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

For Whom the Mind Wanders, and When (2007, background): “In Stroop tasks, for example, if few trials reinforce the goal to ignore the color words and name their hues (because most words and hues match), low-WMC subjects frequently respond according to habit by reading the words (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Toward a Science of Effective Cognitive Training (2020, background): “These interindividual differences in training gains often show distinct patterns after different types of training, with compensation effects (larger gains in low performers) particularly emerging after process-based training targeting one or more basic cognitive resources (e.g., EFs) and magnificat”
Working Memory and Attention – A Conceptual Analysis and Review (2019, neutral): “The latter form of attention includes selection of our current goal or task set and shielding it from distraction (Kane & Engle, 2003; Monsell, 2003), selection of one of several possible actions (Pashler, 1994), and monitoring of our actions and their outcomes (Yeung, Botvinick, & Cohen, 2004).”
A temporal–contextual retrieval account of complex span: An analysis of errors (2006, background): “These complex span tasks have also predicted performance on many measures of lower-order cognitive abilities such as attention control in tasks such as antisaccade (Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Unsworth, Schrock, & Engle, 2004), and Stroop ( Kane & Engle, 2003; Long & Prat, 2002), as well”
Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. (2003, result): “Similar conclusions have been drawn from research on ‘low-level’ attention tasks that require little by the way of memory, per se , such as dichotic listening [21], Stroop color-naming [22], visual orienting [23], and negative priming [24].”
The Stroop Color and Word Test (2017, background): “Moreover, it must be noted that error rate (and not the speed) is an index of inhibitory control (McDowd et al., 1995) or an index of ability to maintain the tasks goal temporarily in a highly retrievable state (Kane and Engle, 2003).”
Cognitive Control Predicts Use of Model-based Reinforcement Learning (2014, background): “Indeed, stable individual differences in cognitive control ability are thought in part to reflect differences in controlled or executive-dependent processing (Kane & Engle, 2003).”
Insights into the neural basis of response inhibition from cognitive and clinical neuroscience. (2009, neutral): “Indeed, the ability to maintain items actively in working memory while resisting interference is considered to be the essential determinant of working memory capacity (Engle et al., 1999; Kane et al., 2001; Kane and Engle, 2003 ).”
The role of working memory in sport (2010, methodology): “In contrast to Miller’s (1956) ‘magical number seven’, Cowan (2001) regards the capacity limit of WM as being about four chunks in young adults.”
Does working memory training generalize (2010, background): “As might be predicted, given the links between WMC and attention, high WMC participants generally show less slowing in response to incongruent Stroop stimuli than do low WMC individuals (Kane & Engle, 2003).”