ArticleMemory & cognition2020
Increasing control improves further control, but it does not enhance memory for the targets in a face-word Stroop task.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coupling between statistical learning and interference suppression.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Conflict adaptation in a confound-minimized face-word Stroop task: exploring the potential settings of an fMRI-related experiment.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The role of cognitive control affects memory encoding: evidence from subsequent memory paradigm.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- Response-Category Conflict and Control Mode Determine Memory Performance for Distractors in a Flanker Paradigm.Journal of cognition · 2024Article
- Measuring memory is harder than you think: How to avoid problematic measurement practices in memory research.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Review
- Independent subsequent memory effects of conflict resolution and response inhibition.Psychological research · 2022Article
- Evaluating the learning of stimulus-control associations through incidental memory of reinforcement events.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent research on the dynamics between attentional and memory processes have outlined the idea that applying control in a conflicting situation directly leads to enhanced episodic memory of the processed information. However, in spite of a small subset of studies supporting this claim, the majority of the evidence in the field seems to support the opposite pattern. In this study, we used a face-word Stroop task to enforce different control modes either from trial to trial or in an item-specific manner. Both manipulations of congruency proved to be effective in making participants' responses to conflicting stimuli more efficient over time by applying a trial-specific control mode. However, these manipulations had no impact on memory performance on a surprise recognition memory test. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt at measuring the memory consequences of the application of specific control modes at the trial level. The results reported here call for caution and possibly reconceptualization of the relationship between cognitive control and memory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.