Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37407798›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2023

Pupillary correlates of preparatory control in the Stroop task.

Nash Unsworth, Ashley L Miller

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The puzzle of profitless pre-cues.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nash UnsworthDepartment of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA. nashu@uoregon.edu.
Ashley L MillerDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
University of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Oregon · US

Funding

Office of Naval Research N00014-22-1-2083
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In three experiments, individual differences in preparatory control in the Stroop task were examined. Participants performed variants of the Stroop task while pupillary responses were examined during the preparatory interval. Variation in working memory capacity was also examined. High Stroop performers tended to demonstrate larger preparatory pupillary responses than low Stroop performers. In Experiment 2, when participants were given pre-cues indicating the congruency of the upcoming trial (MATCHING vs. CONFLICTING), high Stroop performers had larger preparatory pupillary responses for incongruent trials compared to congruent trials, whereas low Stroop performers demonstrated similar preparatory pupillary responses on both incongruent and congruent trials. These results suggest that variation in Stroop performance is partially due to individual differences in the ability to ramp up and regulate the intensity of attention allocated to preparatory control processes. Additionally, there was limited evidence that preparatory control processes partially account for the relation between working memory capacity and performance on the Stroop. Overall, these results provide evidence that individual differences in Stroop performance are partialy due to variation in preparatory control.

Indexed as

AttentionMemory, Short-TermCuesHumansReaction TimeStroop TestCognitive and attentional controlStroopWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID37407798
OpenAlexW4383197907

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.