Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018)

Klaus Oberaur, Stephan Lewandowsky, E Awh, G Brown, A Conway, N Cowan, C Donkin, Simon Farrell, Graham Hitch, Mark Hurlstone, W Ma, C Morey, D Nee, J Schweppe, E Vergauwe, G Ward

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

520 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

We respond to the comments of Logie and Vandierendonck to our article proposing benchmark findings for evaluating theories and models of short-term and working memory. The response focuses on the two main points of criticism: (a) Logie and Vandierendonck argue that the scope of the set of benchmarks is too narrow. We explain why findings on how working memory is used in complex cognition, findings on executive functions, and findings from neuropsychological case studies are currently not included in the benchmarks, and why findings with visual and spatial materials are less prevalent among them. (b) The critics question the usefulness of the benchmarks and their ratings for advancing theory development. We explain why selecting and rating benchmarks is important and justifiable, and acknowledge that the present selection and rating decisions are in need of continuous updating. The usefulness of the benchmarks of all ratings is also enhanced by our concomitant online posting of data for many of these benchmarks.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)972-977
Number of pages6
JournalPsychological Bulletin
Volume144
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2018

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this