Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

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


Oberauer, Klaus; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Awh, Edward; Brown, Gordon D A; Conway, Andrew; Cowan, Nelson; Donkin, Christopher; Farrell, Simon; Hitch, Graham J; Hurlstone, Mark J; Ma, Wei Ji; Morey, Candice C; Nee, Derek Evan; Schweppe, Judith; Vergauwe, Evie; Ward, Geoff (2018). Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018). Psychological Bulletin, 144(9):972-977.

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. (PsycINFO Database Record

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. (PsycINFO Database Record

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Downloads

42 downloads since deposited on 12 Sep 2018
42 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, further contribution
Communities & Collections:06 Faculty of Arts > Institute of Psychology
Dewey Decimal Classification:150 Psychology
Language:English
Date:September 2018
Deposited On:12 Sep 2018 11:22
Last Modified:18 Sep 2018 09:22
Publisher:American Psychological Association
ISSN:0033-2909
Additional Information:This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.
OA Status:Green
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000165
PubMed ID:30148382
Project Information:
  • : FunderSNSF
  • : Grant IDIZ32Z0_150896
  • : Project TitleWorkshop: Benchmarks for Models of Working Memory
  • : FunderSNSF
  • : Grant IDIZ32Z0_160296
  • : Project TitleWorkshop: Benchmarks for Models of Working Memory, II

Download

Download PDF  'Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018)'.
Preview
Content: Accepted Version
Language: English
Filetype: PDF
Size: 235kB
View at publisher