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/debate

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.
LanguageEnglish
Pages972-977
JournalPsychological Bulletin
Volume144
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2018

Fingerprint

Benchmarking
Short-Term Memory
Executive Function
Cognition

Cite this

Oberaur, Klaus ; Lewandowsky, Stephan ; Awh, E ; Brown, G ; Conway, A ; Cowan, N ; Donkin, C ; Farrell, Simon ; Hitch, Graham ; Hurlstone, Mark ; Ma, W ; Morey, C ; Nee, D ; Schweppe, J ; Vergauwe, E ; Ward, G. / Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018). In: Psychological Bulletin. 2018 ; Vol. 144, No. 9. pp. 972-977.
@article{06555d2d39a4480db18d095cfabbe569,
title = "Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018)",
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.",
author = "Klaus Oberaur and Stephan Lewandowsky and E Awh and G Brown and A Conway and N Cowan and C Donkin and Simon Farrell and Graham Hitch and Mark Hurlstone and W Ma and C Morey and D Nee and J Schweppe and E Vergauwe and G Ward",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1037/bul0000165",
language = "English",
volume = "144",
pages = "972--977",
journal = "Psychological Bulletin",
issn = "0033-2909",
publisher = "American Psychological Association",
number = "9",

}

Oberaur, K, Lewandowsky, S, Awh, E, Brown, G, Conway, A, Cowan, N, Donkin, C, Farrell, S, Hitch, G, Hurlstone, M, Ma, W, Morey, C, Nee, D, Schweppe, J, Vergauwe, E & Ward, G 2018, 'Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018)' Psychological Bulletin, vol. 144, no. 9, pp. 972-977. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000165

Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018). / Oberaur, Klaus; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Awh, E; Brown, G; Conway, A; Cowan, N; Donkin, C; Farrell, Simon; Hitch, Graham; Hurlstone, Mark; Ma, W; Morey, C; Nee, D; Schweppe, J; Vergauwe, E; Ward, G.

In: Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 144, No. 9, 09.2018, p. 972-977.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

TY - JOUR

T1 - Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018)

AU - Oberaur, Klaus

AU - Lewandowsky, Stephan

AU - Awh, E

AU - Brown, G

AU - Conway, A

AU - Cowan, N

AU - Donkin, C

AU - Farrell, Simon

AU - Hitch, Graham

AU - Hurlstone, Mark

AU - Ma, W

AU - Morey, C

AU - Nee, D

AU - Schweppe, J

AU - Vergauwe, E

AU - Ward, G

PY - 2018/9

Y1 - 2018/9

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1037/bul0000165

DO - 10.1037/bul0000165

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 144

SP - 972

EP - 977

JO - Psychological Bulletin

T2 - Psychological Bulletin

JF - Psychological Bulletin

SN - 0033-2909

IS - 9

ER -