Multiple interpretations of long-term working memory theory: Reply to Delaney and Ericsson (2016).

This reply is in response to Delaney and Ericsson (2016), who argue that the results of our recent research (Foroughi, Werner, Barragan, & Boehm-Davis, 2015) can be explained by Ericsson and Kintsch's (1995) long-term working memory (LTWM) theory. Our original work was designed to test the prediction made by LTWM theory that interruptions of up to 30 s in duration would not disrupt reading performance. We conducted the work following the method and outcome measures recommended by Ericsson and Kintsch (1995). Our data were clear: interruptions disrupted reading comprehension. We believe that these data do not support predictions made by LTWM theory. Although we appreciate Delaney and Ericsson's (2016) comments, we are unsure how best to move forward because it appears that some of their comments are not consistent with the published work on LTWM theory. Because of the inconsistent and contradictory claims surrounding LTWM theory, the theory does not appear to be falsifiable, or is in danger of becoming unfalsifiable. Creating and testing theory is vital for the advancement of psychological science, but it appears that testing predictions made by LTWM would be very difficult, if not impossible, given the fluid state of the theory.