ArticleCognitive processing2026
Measuring working memory control: validation of a paradigm combining maintenance and inhibition.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study introduces an integrative paradigm for assessing working memory control by combining cognitive inhibition and working memory tasks within a unified experimental framework. Traditional approaches often measure these executive functions separately, limiting ecological validity and underrepresenting their dynamic interplay in real-world cognition. We examined the predictive value of standard tasks, including the N-back, Stroop, and Stop Signal, for working memory control and its relation to set shifting. Participants were undergraduate psychology students (N = 238) in their third semester who completed a series of behavioural tasks as part of a Cognitive Psychology course, with voluntary consent for research use of their data. Findings revealed that performance on the N-back and Stroop tasks significantly predicted working memory control, supporting the notion that it arises from the interaction between active maintenance/manipulation and interference resolution. In contrast, the Stop Signal Task did not predict working memory control, highlighting the distinct contributions of cognitive inhibition over motor response inhibition in executive coordination. Furthermore, working memory control significantly predicted set shifting ability, with Stroop and N-back performance also indirectly predicting set shifting through their influence on working memory control. We also found that the relationship between cognitive inhibition, working memory, and set shifting differed according to working memory control capacity. Specifically, individuals with higher working memory control relied more on cognitive inhibition, whereas those with lower working memory control relied more on working memory ability to support set shifting performance. These results support a notion that inhibitory control and working memory can be assessed simultaneously within a single paradigm. Implications for theoretical models and future cognitive testing approaches are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42313309What 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.