Even an Activated Long-Term Memory System Still Needs a Separate Short-Term Store: A Reply to Cowan (2019)

In Norris (2017), I explained why the notion of activated LTM (long-term memory) combined with a focus of attention was unable to perform the computations required to support short-term memory (STM) and argued that those extra computations must require a separate STM system. Cowan (2019) made the alternative proposal that this full set of computations is better conceptualized as a unitary system of activated LTM. To this he added a pointer system, the ability to perform variable binding, and an unspecified model of STM that acts as a front end to LTM. This appears to be simply an exercise in relabeling. Furthermore, without a computational specification of how the components work, the model lacks the ability to simulate even the most basic STM phenomena. If the model were specified in more detail it seems almost inevitable that it would contain something instantly recognizable as an STM system.