Reports an error in "The case against specialized visual-spatial short-term memory" by Candice C. Morey (Psychological Bulletin, 2018[Aug], Vol 144[8], 849-883). In the article, the text describing the case reports of patient E. L. D. (Hanley, Pearson, & Young, 1990, Hanley, Young, & Pearson, 1991) the text should read that E. L. D. had difficulties compared to a control sample choosing which of 20 faces (rather than 12 faces) she had recently seen. Later in the same section, the text should read "she had little difficulty recognizing which of two familiar faces she had encountered in a recent experimental session . . . .", rather than unfamiliar. Discussion with the original authors of the case reports describing E. L. D. also clarified a methodological point in their original report (Hanley, et al., 1990). The original report says that E. L. D. was given a recognition test for which particular view of an object she observed a month later. This in fact meant that E. L. D. undertook the entire task a month later than the other tasks in the set, not that she received the recognition test a month after exposure. None of these errors impact Morey's (2018) conclusions, including the conclusion that E. L. D.'s case does not meet the criteria for an unambiguous, selective visual-spatial short-term memory deficit. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2018-24700-001.) The dominant paradigm for understanding working memory, or the combination of the perceptual, attentional, and mnemonic processes needed for thinking, subdivides short-term memory (STM) according to whether memoranda are encoded in aural-verbal or visual formats. This traditional dissociation has been supported by examples of neuropsychological patients who seem to selectively lack STM for either aural-verbal, visual, or spatial memoranda, and by experimental research using dual-task methods. Though this evidence is the foundation of assumptions of modular STM systems, the case it makes for a specialized visual STM system is surprisingly weak. I identify the key evidence supporting a distinct verbal STM system-patients with apparent selective damage to verbal STM and the resilience of verbal short-term memories to general dual-task interference-and apply these benchmarks to neuropsychological and experimental investigations of visual-spatial STM. Contrary to the evidence on verbal STM, patients with apparent visual or spatial STM deficits tend to experience a wide range of additional deficits, making it difficult to conclude that a distinct short-term store was damaged. Consistently with this, a meta-analysis of dual-task visual-spatial STM research shows that robust dual-task costs are consistently observed regardless of the domain or sensory code of the secondary task. Together, this evidence suggests that positing a specialized visual STM system is not necessary. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

“反对专业视觉空间短期记忆的案例”：莫雷改正（2018）。

报告了Candice C. Morey在“反对专业视觉空间短期记忆的案例”中的错误（心理通报，2018年8月，第144卷[8]，849-883）。在文章中，描述患者ELD病例报告的文字（Hanley，Pearson和Young，1990年； Hanley，Young和Pearson，1991年）中，文字应显示，与选择20个面孔中的哪个面孔的对照样本相比，ELD有困难（而不是12张面孔）她最近见过。在同一部分的后面，该文本应改为：“她毫不费力地识别出她在最近的实验环节中遇到过的两个熟悉的面孔中的哪一个……”，而不是不熟悉。与描述ELD的病例报告的原始作者的讨论也阐明了原始报告中的方法论要点（Hanley等，1990）。原始报告说，ELD接受了识别测试，一个月后她观察到了该物体的特定视图。实际上，这意味着ELD会比集合中的其他任务晚一个月执行整个任务，而不是她在暴露后一个月接受了识别测试。这些错误均不会影响Morey（2018）的结论，包括ELD的病例不符合明确的，选择性的视觉空间短期记忆缺陷的标准的结论。（原始文章的以下摘要出现在记录2018-24700-001中。）理解工作记忆的主要范式，或思考所需的感知，注意和助记过程的组合，根据备忘录是用听觉语言格式还是视觉格式进行编码，细分短期记忆（STM）。这种传统的解离得到了神经心理学患者的支持，这些患者似乎选择性地缺乏针对听觉，语言，视觉或空间记忆的STM，并且通过使用双重任务方法的实验研究得到了支持。尽管此证据是模块化STM系统假设的基础，但它为专门的可视STM系统所做的案例令人惊讶地微弱。我确定了支持不同语言STM系统的关键证据-患者对语言STM有明显的选择性损害以及语言短期记忆对一般双任务干扰的适应力-并将这些基准应用于视觉空间STM的神经心理学和实验研究。与口头STM上的证据相反，具有明显的视觉或空间STM缺陷的患者往往会经历各种其他缺陷，因此很难得出结论，明确的短期存储受到了损害。与此相一致的是，对双任务视觉空间STM研究的荟萃分析表明，无论次级任务的域或感觉代码如何，始终都能观察到健壮的双任务成本。总之，这些证据表明，不需要专门的视觉STM系统。（PsycINFO数据库记录（c）2018 APA，保留所有权利）。对双任务视觉空间STM研究的荟萃分析表明，无论次级任务的领域或感觉代码如何，始终都能观察到健壮的双任务成本。总之，这些证据表明，不需要专门的视觉STM系统。（PsycINFO数据库记录（c）2018 APA，保留所有权利）。对双任务视觉空间STM研究的荟萃分析表明，无论次级任务的领域或感觉代码如何，始终都能观察到健壮的双任务成本。总之，这些证据表明，不需要专门的视觉STM系统。（PsycINFO数据库记录（c）2018 APA，保留所有权利）。