Lewandowsky, S; Oberauer, Klaus; Brown, G (2009). Response to Barrouillet and Camos: Interference or decay in working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4):146-147.
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.
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.
| Item Type: | Journal Article, refereed, original work |
|---|---|
| Communities & Collections: | 06 Faculty of Arts > Institute of Psychology |
| Dewey Decimal Classification: | 150 Psychology |
| Scopus Subject Areas: | Social Sciences & Humanities > Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
Social Sciences & Humanities > Experimental and Cognitive Psychology Life Sciences > Cognitive Neuroscience |
| Language: | English |
| Date: | March 2009 |
| Deposited On: | 21 Oct 2009 10:23 |
| Last Modified: | 26 Jun 2022 22:51 |
| Publisher: | Elsevier |
| ISSN: | 1364-6613 |
| OA Status: | Closed |
| Publisher DOI: | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.003 |
Lewandowsky, S