ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2022
The influence of working memory capacity and lapses of attention for variation in error monitoring.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Relative Accuracy of Different Methods for Measuring Mind Wandering Subtypes: A Systematic Review.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- Building a construct-valid battery of performance and self-report indicators of sustained attention consistency.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Empowering medical students with AI writing co-pilots: design and validation of AI self-assessment toolkit.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In two experiments, individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC), lapses of attention, and error monitoring were examined. Participants completed multiple WMC tasks along with a version of the Stroop task. During the Stroop, pupil diameter was continuously monitored. In both experiments, error phasic pupillary responses were larger than phasic pupillary responses associated with correct incongruent and correct congruent trials. WMC and indicators of lapses of attention were correlated with error pupillary response, suggesting that high WMC and low lapse individuals had enhanced error monitoring abilities compared with low WMC and high lapse individuals. Furthermore, in Experiment 2 error awareness abilities were associated with WMC, lapses of attention, and the error phasic pupillary responses. Importantly, individual differences in the susceptibility to lapses of attention largely accounted for the relationship between WMC and error monitoring in both experiments. Collectively, these results suggest that WMC is related to error monitoring abilities, but this association is largely due to individual differences in the ability to consistently maintain task engagement and avoid lapses of attention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35426070What 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.