Any mature field of research in psychology-such as short-term/working memory-is characterized by a wealth of empirical findings. It is currently unrealistic to expect a theory to explain them all; theorists must satisfice with explaining a subset of findings. The aim of the present article is to make the choice of that subset less arbitrary and idiosyncratic than is current practice. We propose criteria for identifying benchmark findings that every theory in a field should be able to explain: Benchmarks should be reproducible, generalize across materials and methodological variations, and be theoretically informative. We propose a set of benchmarks for theories and computational models of short-term and working memory. The benchmarks are described in as theory-neutral a way as possible, so that they can serve as empirical common ground for competing theoretical approaches. Benchmarks are rated on three levels according to their priority for explanation. Selection and ratings of the benchmarks is based on consensus among the authors, who jointly represent a broad range of theoretical perspectives on working memory, and they are supported by a survey among other experts on working memory. The article is accompanied by a web page providing an open forum for discussion and for submitting proposals for new benchmarks; and a repository for reference data sets for each benchmark. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract

This study investigates the relation between vowel identity and emotional state. In Experiment 1, (pseudo)words were invented and articulated in a positive or negative mood condition. Subjects in a positive mood produced more words containing /i:/, a vowel involving the same muscle that is used in smiling--the zygomaticus major muscle (ZMM). Subjects in a negative mood produced more words containing /o:/, involving an antagonist of the ZMM--the orbicularis orbis muscle (OOM). We argue that the link between mood and vowel identity is related to orofacial muscle activity, which provides articulatory feedback to speakers on their emotional state. Experiment 2 tests this hypothesis more specifically. Participants rated the funniness of cartoons while repeatedly articulating either /i:/ (ZMM) or /o:/ (OOM). In line with our hypothesis, the cartoons were rated as funnier by subjects articulating /i:/ than by those articulating /o:/.

Various studies have demonstrated an advantage of auditory over visual text modality when learning with texts and pictures. To explain this modality effect, two complementary assumptions are proposed by cognitive theories of multimedia learning: first, the visuospatial load hypothesis, which explains the modality effect in terms of visuospatial working memory overload in the visual text condition; and second, the temporal contiguity assumption, according to which the modality effect occurs because solely auditory texts and pictures can be attended to simultaneously. The latter explanation applies only to simultaneous presentation, the former to both simultaneous and sequential presentation. This paper introduces a third explanation, according to which parts of the modality effect are due to early, sensory processes. This account predicts that-for texts longer than one sentence-the modality effect with sequential presentation is restricted to the information presented most recently. Two multimedia experiments tested the influence of text modality across three different conditions: simultaneous presentation of texts and pictures versus sequential presentation versus presentation of text only. Text comprehension and picture recognition served as dependent variables. An advantage for auditory texts was restricted to the most recent text information and occurred under all presentation conditions. With picture recognition, the modality effect was restricted to the simultaneous condition. These findings clearly support the idea that the modality effect can be attributed to early processes in perception and sensory memory rather than to a working memory bottleneck.

The testing effect is both robust and generalizable. However, most of the underlying studies compare testing to a rather ineffective control condition: massed repeated reading. This article therefore compares testing with note-taking, which has been shown to be more effective than repeated reading. Experiment 1 is based on a 3 × 3 between-participants design with the factors learning condition (repeated reading vs. repeated testing vs. repeated note-taking) and final test delay (5 min vs. 1 week vs. 2 weeks). It shows that in the immediate condition, learning performance is best after note-taking. After 1 week, both the note-taking and the testing groups outperform the rereading group, and after 2 weeks, testing is superior to both note-taking and rereading. Since repeated notetaking may not be the most effective (and common) operationalization of note-taking, Experiment 2 contrasts repeated testing with 2 other note-taking conditions: note-taking plus note-reading and note-taking plus testing (with only a 2-week final test delay). Both conditions that include a testing phase result in better long-term learning than note-taking plus note-reading. In summary, our findings indicate that-in the long run-testing is a powerful learning tool both in isolation and in combination with note-taking. (PsycINFO Database Record