Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Benchmarks provide common ground for model deve...

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

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

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018). / Oberauer, Klaus; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Awh, Edward et al.
In: Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 144, No. 9, 01.09.2018, p. 972-977.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Oberauer, K, Lewandowsky, S, Awh, E, Brown, GDA, Conway, A, Cowan, N, Donkin, C, Farrell, S, Hitch, GJ, Hurlstone, MJ, Ma, WJ, Morey, CC, Nee, DE, Schweppe, J, Vergauwe, E & Ward, G 2018, 'Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018)', Psychological Bulletin, vol. 144, no. 9, pp. 972-977. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000165

APA

Oberauer, K., Lewandowsky, S., Awh, E., Brown, G. D. A., Conway, A., Cowan, N., Donkin, C., Farrell, S., Hitch, G. J., Hurlstone, M. J., Ma, W. J., Morey, C. C., Nee, D. E., Schweppe, J., Vergauwe, E., & Ward, G. (2018). Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018). Psychological Bulletin, 144(9), 972-977. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000165

Vancouver

Oberauer K, Lewandowsky S, Awh E, Brown GDA, Conway A, Cowan N et al. Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018). Psychological Bulletin. 2018 Sept 1;144(9):972-977. doi: 10.1037/bul0000165

Author

Oberauer, Klaus ; Lewandowsky, Stephan ; Awh, Edward et al. / Benchmarks provide common ground for model development : Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018). In: Psychological Bulletin. 2018 ; Vol. 144, No. 9. pp. 972-977.

Bibtex

@article{fd7c3e81f11a4b5c86c4c2adceb0ebe3,
title = "Benchmarks provide common ground for model development: Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018)",
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. (APA PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)",
author = "Klaus Oberauer and Stephan Lewandowsky and Edward Awh and Brown, {Gordon D. A.} and Andrew Conway and Nelson Cowan and Christopher Donkin and Simon Farrell and Hitch, {Graham J.} and Hurlstone, {Mark J.} and Ma, {Wei Ji} and Morey, {Candice C.} and Nee, {Derek Evan} and Judith Schweppe and Evie Vergauwe and Geoff Ward",
year = "2018",
month = sep,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/bul0000165",
language = "English",
volume = "144",
pages = "972--977",
journal = "Psychological Bulletin",
issn = "0033-2909",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "9",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Benchmarks provide common ground for model development

T2 - Reply to Logie (2018) and Vandierendonck (2018)

AU - Oberauer, Klaus

AU - Lewandowsky, Stephan

AU - Awh, Edward

AU - Brown, Gordon D. A.

AU - Conway, Andrew

AU - Cowan, Nelson

AU - Donkin, Christopher

AU - Farrell, Simon

AU - Hitch, Graham J.

AU - Hurlstone, Mark J.

AU - Ma, Wei Ji

AU - Morey, Candice C.

AU - Nee, Derek Evan

AU - Schweppe, Judith

AU - Vergauwe, Evie

AU - Ward, Geoff

PY - 2018/9/1

Y1 - 2018/9/1

N2 - 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)

AB - 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)

U2 - 10.1037/bul0000165

DO - 10.1037/bul0000165

M3 - Journal article

VL - 144

SP - 972

EP - 977

JO - Psychological Bulletin

JF - Psychological Bulletin

SN - 0033-2909

IS - 9

ER -