ArticlePsychological research2021
When cognitive control harms rather than helps: individuals with high working memory capacity are less efficient at infrequent contraction of attentional breadth.
Article in Psychological research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of spatial processing in verbal serial order working memory.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Openness to experience predicts eye movement behavior during scene viewing.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Different deployments of attentional breadth selectively predict UFOV task performance in older adults.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- An updating-based working memory load alters the dynamics of eye movements but not their spatial extent during free viewing of natural scenes.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- Effects of cell phone presence on the control of visual attention during the Navon task.BMC psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Different attentional breadths facilitate performance on different types of perceptual tasks. For instance, a narrow attentional breadth improves spatial resolution; whereas a broad attentional breath enhances face perception. This means that to optimise attention for the dynamic demands of real-world vision, it is necessary to efficiently resize attentional breadth. Previous research has shown that individuals differ considerably in how efficiently they can resize their attentional breadth. Since working memory capacity can be conceptualised as the ability to effectively regulate one's attentional resources, the present study examined whether individual differences in attentional resizing efficiency were related to working memory capacity. Tasks that gauge the efficiency of attentional contraction (resizing from broad to narrow focus) and attentional expansion (resizing from narrow to broad) were used, in addition to standard working memory measures. It was found that individuals high in working memory capacity experienced a greater cost in attentional contraction, that is, they were less efficient in resizing from a broad to a narrow attentional focus. This is likely because the attentional resizing tasks encourage the setting of a particular attentional breadth for the majority of trials in a block, and then gauge efficiency in changing from this breadth on the minority of trials. This means that high-capacity individuals may have more readily adopted the dominant attentional breadth, particularly in the majority-global condition, thereby incurring a greater cost on the infrequent trials requiring resizing to the local level. This shows that at least in some circumstances, greater cognitive control can be a relative disadvantage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32356010What 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.