for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
help
Journal Cover
Psychological Bulletin
Journal Prestige (SJR): 8.793
Citation Impact (citeScore): 16
Number of Followers: 231  
 
  Full-text available via subscription Subscription journal
ISSN (Print) 0033-2909
Published by APA Homepage  [74 journals]
  • Benchmarks for models of short-term and working memory.
    • Abstract: 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 (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 04:00:00 GMT
       
  • Scientific advance and theory integration in working memory: Comment on
           Oberauer et al. (2018).
    • Abstract: Oberauer et al. (2018) report the results of an ambitious project to identify key or “benchmark” empirical findings that have been associated with the concept of working memory. This commentary questions the utility of setting different levels of priority for previous findings for the purposes of advancing theoretical understanding. This gives undue weight to well-established findings that are studied by large numbers of researchers, at the expense of new, or less well researched findings that could be just as, if not more important for theory development. The risk from prioritizing is that ever larger numbers of researchers will focus on well known findings, and how these findings might be explained by favored theoretical approaches. It may act to inhibit innovation, new discoveries and the development of more integrated rather than ever more fractionated theories. An unprioritized, and regularly updated repository of working memory findings with cross referencing of consistency and inconsistency across paradigms, phenomena, and theoretical frameworks would be much more valuable for facilitating new theoretical and empirical advances. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 04:00:00 GMT
       
  • Working memory benchmarks—A missed opportunity: Comment on Oberauer
           et al. (2018).
    • Abstract: This commentary addresses a number of problems with the benchmarks proposed for evaluating theories of short-term and working memory (Oberauer et al., 2018). First, it is shown that the proposed benchmarks intentionally exclude findings regarding the core of the working memory construct and also miss some important findings from other subdomains. For these reasons, the benchmarks cannot be considered as a valid representation of the findings on short-term and working memory. Second, it is shown that although theory-neutrality of the benchmarks was aimed for, this goal was not achieved because theory-neutrality in the formulation of the benchmarks does not guarantee inclusion of all theory-dependent findings. For these reasons, the benchmarks miss their purpose and are defined in such a way as to encourage a future theory development that studies working memory in isolation from other cognitive activities and thus misses the opportunity to stimulate a better integrative understanding of working memory in the broader context of cognition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 04:00:00 GMT
       
  • 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 (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 04:00:00 GMT
       
  • “Meta-analysis of action video game impact on perceptual, attentional,
           and cognitive skills”: Correction to Bediou et al. (2018).
    • Abstract: Reports an error in "Meta-analysis of action video game impact on perceptual, attentional, and cognitive skills" by Benoit Bediou, Deanne M. Adams, Richard E. Mayer, Elizabeth Tipton, C. Shawn Green and Daphne Bavelier (Psychological Bulletin, 2018[Jan], Vol 144[1], 77-110). In the article, a number of issues related to clustering in cases of partial overlap between participants were identified following publication. This document clarifies these issues and extends the original results by adding additional sensitivity analyses. Please see the erratum for the full correction. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2017-52625-001.) The ubiquity of video games in today’s society has led to significant interest in their impact on the brain and behavior and in the possibility of harnessing games for good. The present meta-analyses focus on one specific game genre that has been of particular interest to the scientific community—action video games, and cover the period 2000–2015. To assess the long-lasting impact of action video game play on various domains of cognition, we first consider cross-sectional studies that inform us about the cognitive profile of habitual action video game players, and document a positive average effect of about half a standard deviation (g = 0.55). We then turn to long-term intervention studies that inform us about the possibility of causally inducing changes in cognition via playing action video games, and show a smaller average effect of a third of a standard deviation (g = 0.34). Because only intervention studies using other commercially available video game genres as controls were included, this latter result highlights the fact that not all games equally impact cognition. Moderator analyses indicated that action video game play robustly enhances the domains of top-down attention and spatial cognition, with encouraging signs for perception. Publication bias remains, however, a threat with average effects in the published literature estimated to be 30% larger than in the full literature. As a result, we encourage the field to conduct larger cohort studies and more intervention studies, especially those with more than 30 hours of training. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 04:00:00 GMT
       
 
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
 
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Customise
APIs
Your IP address: 54.225.59.14
 
About JournalTOCs
API
Help
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-