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. (PsycINFO Database Record

If God Handed Us the Ground-Truth Theory of Memory, How Would We Recognize It?

“…These benchmarks represent targets for explanation within the working memory domain. This is a commendable goal because such benchmarks provide "common ground for model development" (Oberauer et al, 2018a). However, as I discussed in Section 3.1, any model of memory would need to be able to explain effects across a variety of memory types, and we need to compile such benchmark findings not only for working memory, but for memory at large.…”