Working Memory, Intelligence and Goal Neglect in the Stroop Task

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Kane ◽  
Randall W. Engle
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Stroop Task ◽  
Goal Neglect

scholarly journals No Evidence that Smartphone Notifications Lead to Goal-Neglect

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niklas Johannes ◽  
Harm Veling ◽  
Moniek Buijzen
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Young People ◽  
Stroop Task ◽  
Goal Neglect ◽  
Modified Stroop ◽  
Current Task ◽  
Tentative Evidence ◽  
Task Goals

These days, young people report to be in a state of permanent alertness due to their smartphones. This state has been defined as smartphone vigilance, an awareness that one can always get connected to others in combination with a permanent readiness to respond to incoming smartphone notifications. We argue that receiving a notification makes users vigilant and activates goals (e.g., checking the message) that interfere with other goals needed to perform a task. We thus hypothesized that smartphone vigilance impairs maintenance of current task-goals in working memory, resulting in increased goal-neglect. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a preregistered experiment that examined the effect of smartphone vigilance (incoming notifications) on goal-neglect in a modified Stroop task. We found evidence that participants perceived notifications as distracting, but vigilance did not lead to increased goal-neglect. To the contrary, there was tentative evidence that vigilant participants performed better at the task.

scholarly journals Neural Dynamics of Conflict Control in Working Memory

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Khoi D. Vo ◽  
Audrey Siqi-Liu ◽  
Alondra Chaire ◽  
Sophia Li ◽  
Elise Demeter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Stroop Task ◽  
Color Word ◽  
Color Naming ◽  
Control Task ◽  
Attentional Processing ◽  
Shared Representations ◽  
Color Representation ◽  
And Performance ◽  
External Stimuli

Abstract Attention and working memory (WM) have classically been considered as two separate cognitive functions, but more recent theories have conceptualized them as operating on shared representations and being distinguished primarily by whether attention is directed internally (WM) or externally (attention, traditionally defined). Supporting this idea, a recent behavioral study documented a “WM Stroop effect,” showing that maintaining a color word in WM impacts perceptual color-naming performance to the same degree as presenting the color word externally in the classic Stroop task. Here, we employed ERPs to examine the neural processes underlying this WM Stroop task compared to those in the classic Stroop and in a WM-control task. Based on the assumption that holding a color word in WM would (pre-)activate the same color representation as by externally presenting that color word, we hypothesized that the neural cascade of conflict–control processes would occur more rapidly in the WM Stroop than in the classic Stroop task. Our behavioral results replicated equivalent interference behavioral effects for the WM and classic Stroop tasks. Importantly, however, the ERP signatures of conflict detection and resolution displayed substantially shorter latencies in the WM Stroop task. Moreover, delay-period conflict in the WM Stroop task, but not in the WM control task, impacted the ERP and performance measures for the WM probe stimuli. Together, these findings provide new insights into how the brain processes conflict between internal representations and external stimuli, and they support the view of shared representations between internally held WM content and attentional processing of external stimuli.

scholarly journals Inattention and task switching performance: the role of predictability, working memory load and goal neglect

2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (8) ◽  
pp. 2090-2110
Author(s):  
Gizem Arabacı ◽  
Benjamin A. Parris
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Memory Load ◽  
Proactive Control ◽  
Reactive Control ◽  
Working Memory Load ◽  
Switching Performance ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Goal Neglect

Abstract Inattention is a symptom of many clinical disorders including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and is thought to be primarily related to limitations in working memory. In two studies, we investigated the implications of inattention for task switching performance. In study one, we measured task switching performance using predictable and unpredictable conditions in adults who self-rated inattention and other ADHD-related tendencies. Tasks required proactive control and reactive control, respectively, under both high and low working memory loads. Results revealed that inattentive, but not hyperactive/impulsive traits, predicted switch costs when switching was predictable and working memory load was high. None of the ADHD traits were related to unpredictable switch costs. Study two was designed to: (1) de-confound the role of proactive control and the need to keep track of task order in the predictable task switching paradigm; (2) investigate whether goal neglect, an impairment related to working memory, could explain the relationship between inattention and predictable task switching. Results revealed that neither predictability nor the need to keep track of the task order led to the association between switch costs and inattention, but instead it was the tendency for those high in inattention to neglect preparatory proactive control, especially when reactive control options were available.

scholarly journals Goal Neglect and Working Memory Capacity in 4- to 6-Year-Old Children

2010 ◽  
Vol 81 (6) ◽  
pp. 1687-1695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Marcovitch ◽  
Janet J. Boseovski ◽  
Robin J. Knapp ◽  
Michael J. Kane
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Goal Neglect

A cross-sectional examination of response inhibition and working memory on the Stroop task

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
pp. 19-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha Duell ◽  
Grace Icenogle ◽  
Karol Silva ◽  
Jason Chein ◽  
Laurence Steinberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Stroop Task ◽  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Cross Sectional

Effect of modafinil on cognitive functions in alcohol dependent patients: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (11) ◽  
pp. 998-1006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leen Joos ◽  
Anna E Goudriaan ◽  
Lianne Schmaal ◽  
Wim van den Brink ◽  
Bernard GC Sabbe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Treatment Outcome ◽  
Stroop Task ◽  
Cognitive Functions ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Digit Span ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Term Memory ◽  
Alcohol Dependent

Cognitive deficits are highly prevalent in alcohol-dependent (AD) patients and may have a detrimental impact on treatment response and treatment outcome. Enhancing cognitive functions may improve treatment success. Modafinil is a promising compound in this respect. Therefore, a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial was conducted with modafinil (300 mg/d) or placebo in 83 AD patients for 10 weeks. Various cognitive functions (digit span task, Tower of London task, Stroop task) were measured at baseline, during and after treatment. Compared to placebo, modafinil improved verbal short-term memory (number of forward digit spans) ( p=0.030), but modafinil exerted a negative effect on the working memory score of the digit span task ( p=0.003). However, subgroup analyses revealed that modafinil did improve both working memory and verbal short-term memory in AD patients with a poor working memory ability at baseline (25% worst performers), whereas no significant treatment effect of modafinil was found on these two dependent variables in patients with good working memory skills at baseline (25% best performers). No effect of modafinil was found on measures of planning (Tower of London task) and selective attention (Stroop task). Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between cognitive remediation and treatment outcome in order to design targeted treatments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document