Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35167106›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2022

The role of attention control in complex real-world tasks.

Christopher Draheim, Richard Pak, Amanda A Draheim, Randall W Engle

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 114 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher DraheimDepartment of Psychology, Lawrence University, Appleton, WI, USA. cdraheim90@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5224-1389
Richard PakDepartment of Psychology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9145-6991
Amanda A DraheimDepartment of Psychology, Lawrence University, Appleton, WI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8872-6428
Randall W EngleSchool of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0816-7406
Georgia Institute of Technology · USClemson University · USLawrence University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working memory capacity is an important psychological construct, and many real-world phenomena are strongly associated with individual differences in working memory functioning. Although working memory and attention are intertwined, several studies have recently shown that individual differences in the general ability to control attention is more strongly predictive of human behavior than working memory capacity. In this review, we argue that researchers would therefore generally be better suited to studying the role of attention control rather than memory-based abilities in explaining real-world behavior and performance in humans. The review begins with a discussion of relevant literature on the nature and measurement of both working memory capacity and attention control, including recent developments in the study of individual differences of attention control. We then selectively review existing literature on the role of both working memory and attention in various applied settings and explain, in each case, why a switch in emphasis to attention control is warranted. Topics covered include psychological testing, cognitive training, education, sports, police decision-making, human factors, and disorders within clinical psychology. The review concludes with general recommendations and best practices for researchers interested in conducting studies of individual differences in attention control.

Indexed as

AttentionSportsHumansIndividualityMemory, Short-TermApplied researchAttention controlExecutive functioningIndividual differencesWorking memory capacity

Identifiers

PMID35167106
PMCPMC8853083
OpenAlexW4212995252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.