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

Oberauer, Klaus and Lewandowsky, Stephan and Awh, Edward and Brown, Gordon D. A. and Conway, Andrew and Cowan, Nelson and Donkin, Christopher and Farrell, Simon and Hitch, Graham J. and Hurlstone, Mark J. and Ma, Wei Ji and Morey, Candice C. and Nee, Derek Evan and Schweppe, Judith and Vergauwe, Evie and Ward, Geoff (2018) Benchmarks provide common ground for model development:Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018). Psychological Bulletin, 144 (9). pp. 972-977. ISSN 0033-2909

Full text not available from this repository.


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. (APA PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)

Item Type:
Journal Article
Journal or Publication Title:
Psychological Bulletin
Uncontrolled Keywords:
ID Code:
Deposited By:
Deposited On:
13 Jul 2020 14:30
Last Modified:
21 Sep 2023 02:56