Once established, goal reminders provide long-lasting and cumulative benefits for lower working memory capacity individuals.

Previous research has shown that Stroop effects interact with working memory capacity (WMC) more strongly with lists of mostly congruent items. Although the predominant explanation for this relationship is goal maintenance, some research has challenged whether listwide effects truly reflect goal-maintenance abilities. The current study improved upon previous methodology by using both within-subject and between-subjects manipulations of goal reminder, increasing both the number of trials between reminders and the total length of the task to allow for greater goal neglect, and more precisely maintaining congruency proportion within each block.

Does collaboration help or hurt recall? The answer depends on working memory capacity.

Collaborative inhibition (reduced recall in collaborative vs. nominal groups) is a robust phenomenon. However, it is possible that not everyone is as susceptible to collaborative inhibition, such as those higher in working memory capacity (WMC).

Patience is a virtue: Individual differences in cue-evoked pupil responses under temporal certainty.

Attention control is often examined behaviorally by measuring task performance and self-reported mind wandering. However, recent studies have also used pupillometry to measure task engagement versus task disengagement/mind wandering. In the current study, we investigated participants' ability to engage versus relax attention control in anticipation of hard (antisaccade) versus easy (prosaccade) trials within a saccade task, creating a "Cue-Evoked" Pupillary Response (CEPR).

Providing goal reminders eliminates the relationship between working memory capacity and Stroop errors.

Previous research has shown that list-wide effects in the Stroop task interact with working memory capacity (WMC). The predominant explanation for this relationship is goal maintenance. However, some researchers have challenged whether list-wide effects truly reflect goal-maintenance abilities.

Measuring task set preparation versus mind wandering using pupillometry.

We investigated participants' task set preparation by measuring changes in pupil diameter during a blank interval as they prepared for an easy (i.e., prosaccade) or difficult (i.

Examining the role of emotional valence of mind wandering: All mind wandering is not equal.

To evaluate the role of emotional valence on the impact of mind wandering on working memory (WM) and sustained attention, we reanalyzed data from three independently conducted studies that examined the impact of stress on WM (Banks & Boals, 2016; Banks, Welhaf, & Srour, 2015) and sustained attention (Banks, Tartar, & Welhaf, 2014). Across all studies, participants reported the content of their thoughts at random intervals during the WM or sustained attention task. Thought probes in all studies included a core set of response options for task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs) that were negatively, positively, or neutrally emotionally valenced.