Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018)
Authors: Oberauer, K., Hurlstone, M.J. et al.
Journal: Psychological Bulletin
Volume: 144
Issue: 9
Pages: 972-977
ISSN: 0033-2909
DOI: 10.1037/bul0000165
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.
Source: Scopus
Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018).
Authors: Oberauer, K., Hurlstone, M.J. et al.
Journal: Psychol Bull
Volume: 144
Issue: 9
Pages: 972-977
eISSN: 1939-1455
DOI: 10.1037/bul0000165
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
Source: PubMed
Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018).
Authors: Oberauer, K., Hurlstone, M.J. et al.
Journal: Psychological bulletin
Volume: 144
Issue: 9
Pages: 972-977
eISSN: 1939-1455
ISSN: 0033-2909
DOI: 10.1037/bul0000165
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
Source: Europe PubMed Central