Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37064504›Full record

ReviewPsychologica Belgica2023

Resisting Visual, Phonological, and Semantic Interference - Same or Different Processes? A Focused Mini-Review.

Coline Grégoire, Steve Majerus

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychologica Belgica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Coline GrégoirePsychology & Neuroscience of Cognition Research Unit, University of Liège, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5907-1570
Steve MajerusPsychology & Neuroscience of Cognition Research Unit, University of Liège, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8206-8097

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The unitary nature of resistance to interference (RI) processes remains a strongly debated question: are they central cognitive processes or are they specific to the stimulus domains on which they operate? This focused mini-review examines behavioral, neuropsychological and neuroimaging evidence for and against domain-general RI processes, by distinguishing visual, verbal phonological and verbal semantic domains. Behavioral studies highlighted overall low associations between RI capacity across domains. Neuropsychological studies mainly report dissociations for RI abilities between the three domains. Neuroimaging studies highlight a left vs. right hemisphere distinction for verbal vs. visual RI, with furthermore distinct neural processes supporting phonological versus semantic RI in the left inferior frontal gyrus. While overall results appear to support the hypothesis of domain-specific RI processes, we discuss a number of methodological caveats that ask for caution in the interpretation of existing studies.

Indexed as

domain-generaldomain-specificinferior frontal gyrusinterferenceresistance to interference

Identifiers

PMID37064504
PMCPMC10103719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.