↓ Skip to main content

Expectancy-Based Strategic Processes Are Influenced by Spatial Working Memory Load and Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Expectancy-Based Strategic Processes Are Influenced by Spatial Working Memory Load and Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01239
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan J. Ortells, Jan W. De Fockert, Nazaret Romera, Sergio Fernández

Abstract

The present research examined whether imposing a high (or low) working memory (WM) load in different types of non-verbal WM tasks could affect the implementation of expectancy-based strategic processes in a sequential verbal Stroop task. Participants had to identify a colored (green vs. red) target patch that was preceded by a prime word (GREEN or RED), which was either incongruent or congruent with the target color on 80% and 20% of the trials, respectively. Previous findings have shown that participants can strategically use this information to predict the upcoming target color, and avoid the standard Stroop interference effect. The Stroop task was combined with different types of non-verbal WM tasks. In Experiment 1, participants had to retain sets of four arrows that pointed either in the same (low WM load) or in different directions (high WM load). In Experiment 2, they had to remember the spatial locations of four dots which either formed a straight line (low load) or were randomly scattered in a square grid (high load). In addition, participants in the two experiments performed a change localization task to assess their WM capacity (WMC). The results in both experiments showed a reliable congruency by WM load interaction. When the Stroop task was performed under a high WM load, participants were unable to efficiently ignore the incongruence of the prime, as they consistently showed a standard Stroop effect, regardless of their WMC. Under a low WM load, however, a strategically dependent effect (reversed Stroop) emerged. This ability to ignore the incongruence of the prime was modulated by WMC, such that the reversed Stroop effect was mainly found in higher WMC participants. The findings that expectancy-based strategies on a verbal Stroop task are modulated by load on different types of spatial WM tasks point at a domain-general effect of WM on strategic processing. The present results also suggest that the impact of loading WM on expectancy-based strategies can be modulated by individual differences in WMC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Professor 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 12 52%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 39%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Linguistics 1 4%
Unknown 11 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,640,437
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,620
of 30,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,538
of 296,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#636
of 720 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,473 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 296,623 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 720 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.