Table 2.
Effect sizes (r) for the effect of working memory capacity on distractor processing (reaction time effects, unless stated otherwise; high vs. low score on working memory span measure, unless stated otherwise).
Source | Experiment | Effect size (r) | Effect of working memory capacity on |
---|---|---|---|
Conway et al. (2001) | 0.416 | Shadowing cost during presentation of irrelevant own name | |
Kane and Engle (2003) | 1 | 0.289 | Stroop interference (error rate) |
Kane and Engle (2003) | 2 | 0.232 | Stroop interference with feedback (error rate) |
Kane and Engle (2003) | 3 | 0.295 | Stroop interference |
Kane and Engle (2003) | 4 | 0.218 | Stroop interference |
De Fockert et al. (2009) | 0.535 | Interference from irrelevant faces (young vs. old participants) | |
Poole and Kane (2009) | 1 | 0.217 | Visual search in the presence of distractors |
Poole and Kane (2009) | 2 | 0.323 | Visual search in the presence of distractors |
Poole and Kane (2009) | 3 | 0.246 | Visual search in the presence of distractors |
Shipstead et al. (2012) | 0.367 | Flanker interference in displays without placeholders | |
Shipstead et al. (2012) | 0.020 | Flanker interference in displays with placeholders | |
Sörqvist et al. (2012) | 0.271 | Effect of auditory deviant on target processing |
In all cases, distractor processing was greater in participants with low (vs. high) working memory capacity. Effect sizes in bold are statistically significant effects at p < 0.05. Papers included in the meta-analysis were first identified via PubMed (search terms “working memory selective attention”). The search returned 750 articles, from which relevant papers were selected, i.e., when they measured distractor processing in selective attention as a function of working memory capacity. In addition, any relevant work was included that was cited in the selected papers, but had not been identified in the PubMed search.