Wilhelm Oliver, Thelen Jasmin, Schmiedek Florian
Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Albert-Einstein-Allee 47, 89081, Ulm, Germany.
DIPF | Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education, Frankfurt, Germany.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2025 May 13. doi: 10.3758/s13423-025-02706-5.
Burgoyne, Frank, and Macnamara (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2024) argued for a separation of updating and working memory factors. We agree that understanding variance across multiple different task classes and measures for the assessment of working memory is crucial. It is a strength of their contribution to include many and diverse subjects and also to study the convergent relation with fluid intelligence. In our view, however, their analysis and interpretation of findings is partly flawed, and other conclusions ought to be drawn from their data. More specifically, we argue that 1) the disengagement hypothesis is hardly convincing to account for their results, and 2) a reanalysis of the data supports other models more than the models put forward by Burgoyne et al. (2024).
伯戈因、弗兰克和麦克纳马拉(《心理onomic公报与评论》,2024年)主张将更新因素和工作记忆因素区分开来。我们认同理解跨多个不同任务类别和工作记忆评估指标的差异至关重要。他们的贡献在于纳入了众多且多样的研究对象,并研究了与流体智力的收敛关系。然而,在我们看来,他们对研究结果的分析和解释存在部分缺陷,应该从他们的数据中得出其他结论。更具体地说,我们认为:1)脱离假说很难令人信服地解释他们的结果;2)对数据的重新分析更支持其他模型,而非伯戈因等人(2024年)提出的模型。