ABSTRACT

In her commentary, Xu [2020. Revisit once more the sensory storage account of visual working memory. Visual Cognition, 28(5–8), 433–446] admonishes the reader that “To have a full understanding of the cognitive mechanisms underlying VWM [visual working memory], both behavioral and neural evidence needs to be taken into account. This is a must, and not a choice, for any study that attempts to capture the nature of VWM” (p. 11). Although we don’t disagree with this statement, our overall assessment of this commentary is that it, itself, fails to satisfy several “musts” and, consequently, does not pose a serious challenge for the sensory recruitment framework for understanding visual working memory. These “musts” include accurately characterizing the framework being critiqued, not favouring verbal models and intuition at the expense of formal quantitative models, and providing even-handed interpretation of the work of others. We’ll conclude with a summary of how the sensory recruitment framework can be incorporated into a broader working model of visual working memory.

摘要

在她的评论中，徐 [2020. 再次重温视觉工作记忆的感官存储帐户。视觉认知，28(5–8), 433–446] 告诫读者“要充分了解 VWM [视觉工作记忆] 的认知机制，需要同时考虑行为和神经证据。对于任何试图捕捉 VWM 本质的研究来说，这是必须的，而不是一种选择”（第 11 页）。尽管我们不反对这一说法，但我们对这一评论的总体评估是，它本身未能满足几个“必须”，因此，不会对理解视觉工作记忆的感官募集框架构成严重挑战。这些“必须”包括准确描述被批评的框架，不偏爱口头模型和直觉而牺牲正式的定量模型，并提供对他人工作的公正解释。