Abstract

Barrouillet and Camos raise three objections to our conclusion that short-term forgetting is caused by interference rather than decay [1]. They suggest (i) that interference models are ‘vague’, (ii) that considering forgetting as a function of delay is questionable and (iii) that the timebased resource-sharing (TBRS) model is not challenged by the data we cited. We believe that these objections do not withstand scrutiny.