The Disruption of STM: A Response to Our Commentators

Abstract

We welcome the discussion prompted by our data (Larsen & Baddeley, this issue 2003). In the case of Macken and Jones (this issue 2003), we note that much of it concerns inconsistency between their findings and those of ourselves and/or others, emphasizing the need for further replication. We welcome the emphasis that Neath, Farley, and Surprenant (this issue 2003) place on the importance of strategy. This is likely to be an issue of increasing importance in the field, although we have doubts about the correlational approach adopted by Neath et al. Finally, we welcome the demonstration by Page and Norris (this issue 2003) that their primacy model is able to give a computationally explicit account of the irrelevant speech effect within a broad phonological loop framework.