Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 36 (2021) 861–873

Developing the Concept of Working Memory: The Role

of Neuropsychology1
Alan D. Baddeley*

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/36/6/861/6326039 by guest on 12 September 2022

Department of Psychology, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK
*Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.D. Baddeley).
Received 21 May 2021; Accepted 29 June 2021

Abstract
The evolution of the concept of a multicomponent working memory is described with particular reference to the contribution from
neuropsychology. Early evidence from patients with the classic amnesic syndrome, together with others showing the opposite
deficit of impaired short-term but preserved long-term memory argued strongly for a separation between long- and short-term
memory systems. Simulation of the short-term deficit in healthy participants using a dual task approach suggested the need to
assume a three component system serving as a multi-purpose working memory comprising an overall attentional control system,
the Central Executive, aided by separable temporary buffer stores for phonological and visuospatial information. An account is
then given of the way in which evidence from patients was combined with the study of healthy participants to test and expand the
model over subsequent years. This led to the need to propose a fourth component, the Episodic Buffer, a system that combines
information from multiple sources and makes it accessible to conscious awareness. I conclude with a brief account of how the
multicomponent approach resembles and differs from that of other current models of working memory.

Keywords: Working memory; Phonological loop; Visuospatial sketchpad; Central executive; Amnesia; Frontal lobes

I am delighted to receive this award, particularly since I cannot claim to be a neuropsychologist. I am however someone
who has benefited greatly during a career of over 50 years from the opportunity to work with a succession of neuropsychologists
all of whom have combined their considerable clinical skills with an interest in applying developments in cognitive psychology
to understanding neuropsychological deficits. I spent 30 years of my research life at the Medical Research Council Applied
Psychology Unit in Cambridge, England which had the remit of combining basic and applied research (Baddeley, 2019). My
neuropsychological research follows this pattern with more applied work principally involving long-term memory (LTM),
much of it concerned with developing tests that apply new developments within cognitive psychology to clinical problems, a
commitment that still continues (Baddeley, Hitch, & Allen, 2019, 2020; Baddeley, Atkinson, Hitch, & Allen, 2021; Laverick
et al., in press), while other work was more theoretically driven, using the rich data from neuropsychological patients to test and
develop cognitive theory. This has been particularly prominent in developing the multicomponent model of working memory.
It is this rather than my more directly applied but more sporadic involvement with LTM that forms the rest of my presentation.
My interest in memory followed a PhD funded by the Royal Mail who were interested in optimizing the design of postal
codes. This was followed by a project on evaluating the quality of telephone lines by requiring people to briefly remember
messages that were presented either in quiet or in noise, the assumption being that noisy speech would be hard to store and
then recall. This was linked to the discovery by my supervisor that short-term memory (STM) appeared to be acoustically based
(Conrad, 1964) and that acoustic similarity between remembered letter sequences (bgvtcp versus kwrsyq) had a major effect on
recall accuracy, even when the letters were presented visually (Conrad & Hull, 1964). If STM was indeed an acoustically based
system the perhaps it would be very sensitive to the auditory quality of the input?

1 Based on the lecture given on receipt of Distinguished Lifetime Contribution to Neuropsychology Award at the 2020 meeting of the National Academy of Neuropsychology on October 16, 2020.

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected].
https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acab060 Advance Access publication 23 July 2021
862 A. D. Baddeley / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 36 (2021); 861–873

My own study therefore looked at the effect of input noise on STM but took the further steps switching from letters to words
(e.g., Mat, Can, Man etc. vs. Pit, Day, Cow etc.). This allowed me to evaluate the possibility that any kind of similarity might
have an equivalent effect presenting a major objection to Conrad’s argument for a purely acoustically based store. To test this
also included sequences of adjectives that were either semantically similar (Huge, Big, Large etc.) or dissimilar (e.g., Deep,
Old, Wet etc.). I asked my participants to remember sequences of five words and did indeed find a dramatic effect of acoustic
similarity with around 80% correct for dissimilar words versus 10% for similar sequences, while similarity of meaning showed
a minimal effect (75% vs. 65%, happily supporting my boss’s theory of an acoustic STM system. My second step was to show
that this pattern completely reversed when list length was increase to 10 words requiring several trials to learn. This suggested
the simple conclusion that while STM depended on acoustic coding, LTM was semantically based. This bought me a ticket into
the hot theoretical controversy of the time, whether it was necessary to assume more than one kind of memory. In retrospect,
I realize that this was the true origin of my lifetime preoccupation with working memory, the system that holds information in
mind while thinking.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/36/6/861/6326039 by guest on 12 September 2022

My introduction to neuropsychology came a few years later when Elizabeth Warrington who I had known since undergraduate
days asked if I would like to work with amnesic patients. I was initially skeptical, arguing that it seemed very unlikely that they
would be kind enough to have their lesions in theoretically interesting places but agreed to go along and demonstrate a technique
that might have relevance to the hypothesis that the amnesic syndrome might reflect a retrieval deficit. I duly arrived and it rapidly
became clear that our patient did not have a generalized retrieval deficit, so what next? I asked Elizabeth what amnesic patients
were like and she said that if they were interrupted they immediately forgot. This seemed unlikely given what we thought we
knew about STM, namely that STM traces gradually fade over 20 s or so (Peterson & Peterson, 1959), so we decided to send
our patient for a cup of tea while we made up material and tested her. We found that she did not in fact forget immediately, but
rather at the normal rate expected by the cognitive literature, despite being densely amnesic.
I was surprised by the clarity and apparent purity of the dissociation and intrigued by potential raised by neuropsychology to
throw light on theory. We agreed that it would be interesting to take a range of tests from the ongoing STM controversy and apply
them to the group of patients that Elizabeth had carefully selected as having a very pure LTM deficit. We did indeed find broad
support for a distinction between STM, preserved in the amnesic syndrome and LTM, that was, greatly impaired (Baddeley &
Warrington, 1970). This fitted neatly into the demonstration by Shallice and Warrington (1970) of the contrasting pattern of
impaired STM and preserved LTM which they found in a small sample of patients with left hemisphere lesions. Their patients
had digit spans of around two items, implying grossly impaired STM with apparently normal language and cognitive skills,
including the capacity to transfer new information into LTM. Together, the two types of patient provided a double dissociation
between classic amnesic patients with impaired LTM and but preserved STM and the newly discovered STM patients with the
opposite pattern, consistent with a distinction between the two types of memory that was currently the source of considerably
controversy within the mainstream cognitive literature.

Developing the Concept of Working Memory

Throughout the next few years, while maintaining an interest in neuropsychology, my main focus of attention was on the lively
controversy as to the nature and function of STM. This was a very active area with a range of new experimental paradigms being
developed, often with accompanying mathematical or computational models. Much of this work was subsequently captured in
what became known as the “modal model,” presented in an influential paper by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968). This assumed
that information flowed through a number of sensory memory systems, often termed iconic memory for the visual and echoic
memory for the auditory, before feeding into a short-term store (STS) which then transferred information to LTM. The STS was
assumed to act as working memory, being responsible not only for holding information while it is transferred to LTM, but also for
performing a range of control processes including rehearsal, choice of strategy and decision as to how and when to respond. The
modal model continued to feature in standard texts for many years, but by the early 1970s was already encountering problems,
of which two were substantial.
The first problem involved the assumption that merely holding information in the STS was sufficient to ensure transfer to
LTM; it rapidly became clear that mere time in store was relatively unimportant compared to the operations performed on the
material, with deeper and more elaborate processing leading to better learning as suggested by Craik and Lockhart (1972) in their
Levels of Processing hypothesis. The second problem came from the previously described discovery by Shallice and Warrington
(1970) of patients who had grossly impaired STM, together with apparently normal LTM. How could information get into LTM
if the STM system was impaired? Furthermore, if the short-term system functioned as a general working memory, then such
patients should have extensive cognitive deficits, making everyday life problematic. This was not the case, making it unlikely
that the proposed STS performed all the activities proposed by the modal model. By this time, I had moved from the APU in
 A. D. Baddeley / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 36 (2021); 861–873 863

Fig. 1. The original version of the multicomponent model proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/36/6/861/6326039 by guest on 12 September 2022

Cambridge to the recently founded University of Sussex, where I obtained my first research grant, to study the link between
LTM and STM with Graham Hitch as postdoctoral fellow.
The study of STM did not look promising at the time. It had begun to fractionate into a range of different models many focused
on specific and detailed experimental paradigms with little generality. Meanwhile the modal model itself was encountering
the problems just described. An obvious next step would be to focus on the patients with impaired STM who were proving
problematic for the modal model, but these were rare and not available to us. Instead we decided to turn our undergraduate
participants into simulated patients by systematically loading their STM and studying the impact of this on a range of different
cognitive activities. Our basic paradigm was to require participants to hear and repeat back sequences of digits varying in length
from zero to eight digits while at the same time requiring them to perform tasks involving processes that might reasonably be
assumed to depend on the hypothetical working memory system. We wanted findings to be general rather than specific to a
particular task and opted to study three different activities, verbal reasoning, prose comprehension and word list learning. In
each case, we assumed that the longer the concurrently repeated novel digit sequence the greater the load on the STS should be
and the poorer the performance. Indeed, if the modal model was correct, performance should break down completely when the
load approached digit span.
To our surprise this was not what we found. In the reasoning task for example, response times became systematically slower
as concurrent digit load increased, but only by about 50% at the maximum load of eight digits while even more surprisingly,
error rates remained constant at around 5%. Broadly similar results were found for prose comprehension and verbal learning,
prompting us to revise our views of STM, abandoning the assumption of a simple unitary store and replacing it with a three
component model which we termed “working memory” to emphasize the fact that we were interested in its functional importance,
in what it did, rather than its simple storage capacity.
The three components comprised the Central Executive, an attentional control system, aided by two temporary storage
systems, one verbal and subsequently named the phonological loop and its visual equivalent, the visuospatial sketchpad (see
Fig. 1). Work on the model started in Sussex, continued through a very fruitful 2-year period at the University of Stirling and
was finally published from the APU in Cambridge where I had returned as director, following Donald Broadbent. Our three
component model first appeared as an invited chapter, an invitation we were cautious about accepting because the model was
certainly not complete. Fortunately, we did accept (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974) and it has now been cited (Baddeley & Hitch,
1974) more than 17,000 times. It is still incomplete! Indeed, I regard one of its strengths is that of providing a broad theoretical
framework whose incompleteness invites more detailed development while at the same time encouraging its application to
an increasingly wide range of related issues both basic and applied. Such extensions are hopefully capable of increasing its
scope while also potentially highlighting the limitations of the framework and driving it to evolve by stimulating fruitful further
questions.
One of the most productive of such links has been with neuropsychology. As already discussed, evidence from the amnesic
syndrome played an important part in separating the long- and short-term aspects of memory while the identification and study
of patients with STM deficits by Shallice and Warrington (1970) highlighted the crucial limitation of the Atkinson and Shiffrin
(1968) modal model. In what follows, I will give a brief account of the way in which the multicomponent model of working
memory has developed, using the broad framework to highlight the particular contributions made by neuropsychology to my own
theoretical development before concluding with some thoughts on the various ways in which neuropsychology and cognitive
psychology are able to interact so fruitfully.
Although our model had three components our initial work focused principally on the verbal subsystem which we judged
to be the easiest starting point, partly because much of the earlier literature on verbal STM was directly relevant, including
my earlier work on acoustic and semantic coding. We proposed a simple model of this component which we initially termed
the articulatory loop. This comprised an acoustic-verbal temporary store in which information would fade unless refreshed by
864 A. D. Baddeley / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 36 (2021); 861–873

vocal or sub-vocal rehearsal. Our earlier work on the role of acoustic and semantic similarity implied some form of language-
related short-term storage system while evidence for the importance of rehearsal came from our demonstration of the word
length effect, the observation that verbal memory span is strongly dependent on the spoken length of the words to be recalled
(Baddeley, Thomson, & Buchanan, 1975). Thus when asked to immediately recall sequences of five words, participants recalled
about 90% when these were monosyllables (e.g., stick) but only about 50% when the words comprised five syllables (e.g.,
refrigerator). Furthermore, the relationship between word length and performance breaks down when articulation is disrupted
by the concurrent requirement to repeatedly utter even a single sound such as the word “the,” termed articulatory suppression.
Such suppression of rehearsal also eliminates the phonological similarity effect, but only when presentation is visual. We interpret
this as showing a direct route from audition to the acoustically based storage system, allowing the sound characteristics of the
input to be registered, though not actively rehearsed, implying that with visual presentation, articulation is necessary to convert
the stimulus from a visual to an acoustic code.
To summarize, our simple loop model assumed a memory trace registered in an acoustic or phonological store that fades unless

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/36/6/861/6326039 by guest on 12 September 2022

refreshed. The trace can be set up either directly through auditory presentation or indirectly through subvocal articulation. This
subsystem is controlled by the central executive for which it provides a relatively attentionally undemanding source of sequential
verbal information which can then be strategically employed to help perform other demanding tasks. Each of the components
of the phonological loop model can be studied relatively independently either by manipulating the acoustic or visuospatial
similarity within the remembered material, by controlling rehearsal through articulatory suppression and in the case of the
central executive, through the use of attention-demanding concurrent tasks. The strategy of using concurrent tasks together with
the manipulation of similarity has continued to prove fruitful throughout the subsequent 40 years of studying working memory
(see Baddeley & Hitch, 2019 for an overview).
A valuable opportunity to study the nature of the link between perception, articulation and memory came from the study
of anarthric patients (Baddeley & Wilson, 1985) where a patient suffering from locked-in syndrome with a total inability to
articulate, had a relatively normal memory span and showed the classic pattern of phonological similarity and word length
effects. This was also the case for other patients with less drastic problems with overt articulation. (Baddeley & Wilson, 1985).
A contrasting pattern was found in a patient suffering from word deafness who showed impaired immediate memory that was
essentially due to phonological processing problem (Baddeley & Wilson, 1993). Furthermore, while patients with a pure deficit
in phonological STM are rare, as Vallar, Corno, and Basso (1992) report, impairments of the phonological loop are far from
uncommon in patients with a more complex pattern of aphasia. Finally, the basic phonological loop model can be linked to both
its probable anatomical representation and its neuropsychological application (Vallar & Papagno, 2002).
By this point, we felt we had a reasonably good basic model of the phonological loop but were left with a rather important
question. What was its function? One way of answering this would be to locate a patient with a very pure verbal STM deficit and
establish first, whether a detailed assessment of her deficit was consistent with that predicted by the phonological loop concept. If
so, we could ask what activities gave her difficulty. These should then throw light on the basic functions of the phonological loop.
The opportunity to study a patient with a clear and apparently isolated deficit in verbal STM occurred through a collaboration
with Giuseppe Vallar in Milan, one of a group of neurology-based neuropsychologists developed by Ennio De Renzi in Milan,
who subsequently proved to be invaluable colleagues. We were able to show that patient PV who had suffered a left hemisphere
stroke showed a pattern of impairment that closely resembled that expected by the model, namely a very pure deficit on tests
of STM such as digit span and the recency effect in free recall, coupled with normal performance on measures both of broad
cognitive function and of LTM (Vallar & Baddeley, 1984a). PV’s immediate serial memory for consonant sequences showed a
clear phonological similarity effect with auditory presentation, but no effect when presentation was visual, suggesting a failure
or reluctance to convert the visual input into an auditory representation. Consistent with this, she showed no effect of articulatory
suppression and no word length effect, again suggesting that she was not using the system in the normal way, we suspect because
this would simply be feeding information into her defective phonological storage system. This was not due to her inability to
articulate rapidly as her speed of speaking the number sequence 1–10 and reciting the alphabet was comparable with control
participants (Vallar & Baddeley, 1984a). Subsequent research showed that, contrary to the claims of Allport (1984) that STM
patients have a subtle perceptual problem, she proved to be well within the normal range on phonological discrimination, the
assignment of stress to written words and judgment of rhyme, while her comprehension of individual words and short sentences
was also unaffected (Vallar & Baddeley, 1984b).
Our initial assumption was that the phonological loop played an important role in language processing but this was not
supported for spoken or written sentences (Vallar & Baddeley, 1987). So what was the function of the loop, if any? Could the
loop perhaps be important in acquiring language in the first place? We set out to test this asking her to learn an eight word
vocabulary of an unfamiliar language, Russian (e.g., flower – svieti), comparing this with her capacity to learn to associate pairs
of words in her native language (e.g., castle – table), a task that we know to be based principally on semantic coding. When
compared to a matched control group, PV learned the pairs in her native language at a normal rate while completely failing to
 A. D. Baddeley / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 36 (2021); 861–873 865

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/36/6/861/6326039 by guest on 12 September 2022

Fig. 2. Evidence for the role of the phonological loop in long-term language acquisition leads to specifying a two way link between working memory and LTM.

master any of a set of eight Italian-Russian pairs by the time all of the controls had learnt the whole set (Baddeley, Papagno, &
Vallar, 1988). This provided clear support to the hypothesis of the phonological loop as a language learning device.
In the absence of a second patient, we were unable to replicate directly, moving instead to an approach based on disrupting
the phonological loop in healthy participants. We did this initially by using articulatory suppression, finding that this did indeed
differentially impair acquisition of Finnish vocabulary items in a sample of English speaking participants (Papagno, Valentine,
& Baddeley, 1991) while Papagno and Vallar (1992) showed that, as predicted, foreign language acquisition was differentially
affected by both word length and phonological similarity within the novel word set.
This raised the question of whether a phonological loop limitation might lead to slower development of vocabulary in children.
Susan Gathercole and I were able to test a group of 8-year-old children diagnosed with specific language impairment (SLI) who
had the language development of 6-year-olds, together with normal nonverbal cognition. A preliminary study using existing
tests indicated a particular problem in repeating back unfamiliar spoken non words, a deficit that was not due to problems in
hearing or articulation. We went on to develop a test (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1996) in which the child hears and repeats non
words increasing in length from two syllables (e.g., ballop) to five (e.g., altupatory). We compared our SLI children with two
control groups, one comprised 8-year-olds with normal levels of both verbal and nonverbal development while the second group
comprised 6-year-olds who were matched with the 8 year-old SLI children on language level. The SLI group showed a marked
decline in performance as number of syllables increased, an effect that was substantially greater than that shown in either of the
control groups. (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990).
A further series of studies was concerned with the link between the phonological loop and vocabulary development in healthy
children. Here we found a robust association between our non-word repetition test and vocabulary, tested by speaking a word and
requiring the child to select the correct one of four pictured items. A longitudinal study suggested that this was driven initially
by phonological loop capacity with our non-word recognition test predicting vocabulary a year later rather than the reverse.
The association between non-word repetition and vocabulary is not limited to the initial years but as vocabulary develops the
association becomes reciprocal; having a good vocabulary enhances acquisition of new words (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1989a,
1989b), while eventually other factors such as executive processing and exposure to a rich verbal environment become more
important. The non-word repetition test also proved to be closely predictive of problems with reading both at the individual
level (Baddeley & Wilson, 1993), and more broadly (Gathercole, Pickering, Knight, & Stegmann, 2004), leading at a practical
level to its extensive use in assessing reading problems in children. At a theoretical level, it fed into an overall review of the
evidence suggesting the phonological loop might operate more generally as a language learning device (Baddeley, Gathercole,
& Papagno, 1998) and suggesting the need to assume a direct link between temporary storage in the subsystems and long-term
learning (see Fig. 2).
866 A. D. Baddeley / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 36 (2021); 861–873

We proposed a visuo-spatial component to the original model, on the basis of earlier research where we had found a distinction
between visual STM and LTM in amnesic patients resembling its verbal equivalent (Warrington & Baddeley, 1974), and in
the case of visual STM had developed a measure of STM for complex patterns (Phillips & Baddeley, 1971). This was later
developed and published as the visual patterns test, a clinical measure that was shown to distinguish between the visual and
spatial components of working memory (Della Sala, Gray, Baddeley, Allamano, and Wilson (1999).
However, my first attempt to explore the concept of a visuospatial sketchpad systematically came from a study of visual
imagery that was prompted by an experience while on sabbatical leave in California. I became interested in American football
and was listening to the UCLA-Stanford college game while driving along the freeway. I had formed a clear image of the field
and the current play when I noticed that I was weaving from lane to lane and rapidly switched to music! On returning to the
UK I set out to simulate this experience. I did not have access to a driving simulator but instead used a pursuit rotor, an ancient
instrument whereby the participant attempts to keep a stylus in contact with a moving light spot. I was able to combine this
with a series of tasks involving visual or verbal STM, finding that that tracking disrupted the visuo-spatial but not the verbal

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/36/6/861/6326039 by guest on 12 September 2022

STM task (Baddeley, Grant, Wight, & Thomson, 1973). A later study indicated that the disruptive effect of our tracking task
was essentially spatial rather than visual in nature (Baddeley & Lieberman, 1980) leading me initially to propose that the whole
system was spatially based. I was however subsequently convinced by my colleague Robert Logie (1986) that the sketchpad
comprises separate visual and spatial components, a position later demonstrated more thoroughly by Klauer and Zhao (2004).
My own involvement in the neuropsychological basis of the visuospatial sketchpad has however been limited to a single
study of an interesting patient, LE who suffered brain damage as a result of Lupus Erythematosus. She was a talented sculptor
who reported losing her capacity to visualize but retaining her spatial abilities, as shown for example by her driving herself
on an unfamiliar route to our Cambridge lab. Her sculpting changed dramatically from detailed realistic representations to an
entirely abstract form. This was not simply a change of style since her capacity to produce simple drawings also deteriorated
substantially. A careful study of her performance on a range of STM tasks indicated a sketchpad deficit (Wilson, Baddeley, &
Young, 1999) while this also proved to be the case for a patient originally described as having a deficit in face memory (see
Hanley & Young, 2019 for a discussion). There are of course other cases of preserved spatial but impaired visual memory (e.g.,
Della Sala et al., 1999; Farah, Hammond, Levine, & Calvanio, 1988) or the reverse pattern of spatial impairment with preserved
visual STM (e.g., Carlesimo, Perri, Turriziani, Tomaiuolo, & Caltagirone, 2001), while as mentioned earlier, performance on
the spatial Corsi blocks test dissociates from performance on the visual pattern span test (Della Sala et al., 1999).
Neuropsychological evidence played a much more important role in developing the concept of the all-important central
executive. When attempting to survey our first decade of research on working memory (Baddeley, 1986), I encountered a huge
gap; how should we conceptualize the central executive? Our problem was not with the common criticism that the executive
was simply a convenient homunculus, a little man in the head who could be used to explain away any awkward findings. My
response to this objection is that such homunculi can be useful in theorizing, as a means of acknowledging that a certain area lies
beyond the scope of a developing model, given two provisos. Firstly, that one accepts that homunculus constitutes a convenient
reminder of the problem area, not an explanation and secondly that the labeled area will itself subsequently need to be tackled
(Attneave, 1960: Baddeley, 1998). However, it was clearly time to make a start on stage two for which I needed a suitable model
of attention that I might incorporate into the existing framework.
There were several possible attentional models already in existence but unfortunately all except one were principally
concerned with the attentional control of perception whereas an adequate working memory should also involve control of action.
The one exception came from a technical report by Norman and Shallice (1983) and was sufficiently novel as to prove hard for
them to publish in a standard journal, eventually appearing as a book chapter (Norman & Shallice, 1986). The two authors had
somewhat different aims in mind. Norman was interested in explaining slips of action, ranging from everyday examples such
as setting off to the supermarket on a Saturday morning and inadvertently finding yourself at your weekday office location, to
other more drastic cases that could potentially result in a major catastrophe such as an air crash or a nuclear power plant disaster.
Shallice’s principal interest was very different and stemmed from his desire to understand the function of the frontal lobes and
to explain the sometimes bizarre patterns of behavior shown by some but not all patients with frontal lobe damage. Together
they came up with a simple but powerful general model that assumes that behavior is controlled in two ways. The first assumes
that many of our actions are controlled semi-automatically as a result of well-learned skills and habits. An example would be
driving your car on a familiar route. You would be obeying a whole range of rules regarding action, keeping to the correct side
of the road, responding automatically when the car in front brakes and not going through red lights. And yet you might arrive
having little memory of any of these reliable but habitual behaviors. Suppose however that the route is blocked by an accident. A
second component, the supervisory attentional system (SAS) steps in to plan an alternative route. It is this system that Shallice
attributes to the frontal lobes, a system that may not be required when everything is going smoothly, but is essential when there
is a need to change a pattern of action or plan future activities. This was the model I chose to incorporate as the central executive
component of our model.
 A. D. Baddeley / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 36 (2021); 861–873 867

However, while this broad model might provide a useful distinction between two potential methods of action control it could
be argued that the SAS itself is simply another homunculus. Further development is thus needed if it is to prove to be theoretically
productive. Shallice chose to tackle the problem of modeling the SAS based an extensive range of neuropsychological studies
of patients with frontal lobe damage, culminating in a detailed computational model (Shallice, 1988, 2002). Lacking the
computational skills to adopt this method, I opted for a different approach. I proposed a list of basic capacities that were likely
to be needed by any model capable of fulfilling the functions of a central executive and went on to try to study them separately.
By systematically attempting to explain how the homunculus performs each of these functions I hoped that eventually with all
the functions explained, the homunculus would be able to retire (Baddeley, 1996, 1998).
We began with a basic question, does the central executive function as a unitary system, or can it be fractionated into separate
components? If so, what might these be? We assume that any adequate executive system would need to focus attention and
to inhibit the processing of irrelevant distractors. It would need to be able to divide attention when simultaneously performing
more than one activity and where necessary to switch attention between tasks. Finally it would require the capacity to access

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/36/6/861/6326039 by guest on 12 September 2022

and manipulate information from LTM (Baddeley, 1996).
At this time, my active neuropsychological activities however were largely practical, concerned with the question of which
standard psychological tests (if any), were able to predict memory performance in everyday life, something that our earlier
research had called into doubt (Sunderland, Harris, & Baddeley, 1983). This in turn had led to collaborating with Barbara Wilson
at Rivermead Rehabilitation Centre in Oxford on validating her test of everyday memory the Rivermead Behavioural Memory
Test (Wilson, Cockburn, Baddeley, & Hiorns, 1989). An incidental benefit from this came through the opportunity to work with
a range of potentially theoretically interesting single cases, one of whom, RJ showed the classic attentional problems associated
with bilateral frontal lobe damage (Baddeley & Wilson, 1988). He was unable to achieve any categories on the Wisconsin Card
Sorting Test, making 45 errors of which 43 were perseverations. His verbal fluency was grossly impaired, failing to generate
any words beginning with S or V and able to generate only one animal name. This was not due to a lack of semantic information
since when asked for example for an Australian animal that hops he readily came up with “kangaroo.”
His general behavior was also characteristic of the classical frontal pattern ranging from passive and apathetic to charming and
amusing, while demonstrating perseverative behavior in speech, writing, and action. However, although RJ vividly illustrated
the typical characteristics of the patient with frontal lobe syndrome, his problems extended beyond, including some perceptual
difficulties together with dense amnesia as reflected in verbal and visual recall and recognition and his failing all 12 subtests of the
Rivermead Behavioral Test. Hence, although RJ reinforced my interest in the role of the frontal lobes, the extent and complexity
of RJ’s cognitive deficits limited the theoretical conclusions that could be unequivocally drawn (Baddeley & Wilson, 1988). I
returned therefore to the attempt to identify and study the proposed separable components of the executive.
An obvious requirement of any plausible executive is the capacity to focus attention. While clearly of central importance to any
model of attention, it was not an aspect that we ourselves explored although others, notably Cowan (2005) worked extensively
on this issue. One approach is to emphasize the importance of inhibition as a means of focusing and hence maximizing the
use of the available attentional capacity (Engle, Conway, Tuholski, & Shisler, 1995). Some accounts go further to suggest two
modes of inhibition, one concerned with preventing intrusion from earlier memories in contrast to a second inhibitory process
concerned with resisting interference from competing external perceptual or attentional demands (Miyake et al., 2000) although
a recent meta-analysis has questioned the generality of this proposed distinction (Gärtner & Strobel, 2021).
In my own case, a promising line of further investigation emerged as a result of an invitation from two of our colleagues
from Milan, Hans Spinnler and Sergio Della Sala, to apply the multicomponent model to the study of an extensive and well
assessed group of patients suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease (ad). We decided to test the hypothesis that ad was characterized
by an impairment of central executive functioning, aiming to investigate which if any of the hypothetical executive components
might be compromised (Baddeley, Logie, Bressi, Della Sala, & Spinnler, 1986). We found one capacity that was particularly
reduced, namely the capacity to coordinate two separate tasks. We chose two tasks that were assumed to load on different
working memory subsystems, a visuo-spatial tracking task that was assumed to depend on the sketchpad and a verbal task,
immediate recall of digit sequences. We tested three groups, ad patients, age matched controls and young controls. In each case,
we carefully titrated level of difficulty to match performance across groups varying speed of tracking and length of concurrent
digit sequence to equate performance. We then required the tracking and digit tasks to be performed simultaneously. The results
were clear, with minimum disruption of performance from combination of the visual and verbal tasks for either the young or
the elderly controls, together with a substantial decrement in ad, reflected in this study by an increased error rate on the verbal
digit task (Baddeley, Logie, Bressi, Della Sala, & Spinnler, 1986b).
A subsequent study (Baddeley, Bressi, Della Sala, Logie, & Spinnler, 1991) monitored the performance of ad patients and
controls over a year, finding much more rapid deterioration in dual task performance in the ad patients reflected in both the digit
and the tracking components of the task. A subsequent study by Logie, Cocchini, Delia Sala, and Baddeley (2004) ruled out an
explanation in terms of overall attentional load, finding a substantial drop in the dual task performance of ad patients, even when
868 A. D. Baddeley / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 36 (2021); 861–873

the two tasks were made very easy. Subsequent studies showed that this was not simply a general deficit in attentional focus since
to the capacity of ad patients to sustain attention in a simple detection task proved equivalent to controls (Baddeley, Baddeley,
Bucks, & Wilcock, 2001; Baddeley, Cocchini, Della Sala, Logie, & Spinnler, 1999). Subsequent research has confirmed the
potential value of dual task performance as a means of early detection (Parra et al., 2009).
While we have by now accumulated extensive evidence for a deficit in dual task performance in ad patients, this does not
necessarily link this deficit either to a frontal lobe location or to lack of executive control of behavior more generally. This issue
was tackled by recruiting a total of 32 patients with well-established frontal lobe lesions, half of whom were independently
categorized as showing evidence of dysfunctional behavioral problems while half did not show such disturbance. All were tested
on dual task performance and on two standard frontal lobe performance measures, the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST)
and verbal fluency and were independently rated on a range of carefully specified markers of dysexecutive behavior. When the
two groups were compared, the group with behavioral problems was significantly more impaired on dual task performance,
while no difference emerged between groups in their impaired fluency or WCST performance. Evidence from an association

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/36/6/861/6326039 by guest on 12 September 2022

between dual task performance and dysfunctional behavior was reported in a more clinical context by Alderman (1996) based on
an approach to rehabilitation using a token economy system. While the system worked well for most patients, a small subgroup
failed to respond positively. These patients proved to be particularly impaired on dual task performance.
During our various attempts to link the frontal lobe syndrome with our working memory model, we became increasingly
dissatisfied with the terminology. As Stuss and Benson point out the term “frontal lobe syndrome” is used to refer to an
“amorphous group of deficits, resulting from diverse etiologies, different locations and variable extents of abnormalities” (Stuss
& Benson, 1984, p. 3). Barbara Wilson and I suggested that a behavioral description would be more appropriate, leaving open
the question of anatomical localization; instead we proposed the term “dysexecutive syndrome.” We attempted to publish a brief
case for the use of this term. Unfortunately our paper was turned down by several journals where in each case, referees were
evenly split between those who claimed that the distinction was obvious and those who claimed that it was obviously wrong!
We eventually smuggled it into the literature via the title of the paper describing the previously described patient RJ (Baddeley
& Wilson, 1988), later following up with its incorporation in an invited chapter on fractionating the central executive (Baddeley,
2002) published as part of symposium on the frontal lobes (Stuss & Knight, 2002). A recent googling of the term dysexecutive
syndrome suggests that our strategy seems to have worked!
To return to our aim of fractionating the central executive, our hypothesis of a specific capacity to divide attention between
two or more tasks, seemed to have proved fruitful, at least as applied to Alzheimer’s Disease. Our second proposal, the capacity
to switch attention between tasks however proved less promising. Although the study of attention switching was moving from a
neglected to a highly active topic, our own attempt to link it to the central executive was not strongly supported. One study based
on a traditional switching paradigm, suggesting a surprisingly substantial contribution from the phonological loop rather than the
executive both over the short-term (Baddeley, Chincotta, & Adlam, 2001) and even more surprisingly in a relatively long-term
paradigm (Saeki, Baddeley, Hitch, & Saito, 2013). More generally, despite its early promise, (Allport, Styles, & Hsieh, 1994;
Rogers & Monsell, 1995), the field appears to have evolved into a range of relatively narrow paradigms associated with micro
models. At present, it seems likely that there may be several ways of switching tasks, rather than a single executive capacity.
Up to this point therefore, despite their potential importance, neither attentional focus nor task switching has played an
important role in developing the multicomponent model although if established, neither capacity in principle presents a major
problem for an expanded version of the model. That was not the case for the fourth capacity proposed for the executive, namely
that of providing an active interface with LTM. This problem was brought to the fore by the attempt to develop a measure of
individual differences in overall working memory capacity by Daneman and Carpenter (1980), two investigators interested in
applying the concept of working memory to prose comprehension. They argued that the essence of working memory is the
capacity to maintain information while simultaneously processing it, attempting to measure this capacity using an apparently
simple task which involves reading out loud a sequence of sentences then attempting to recall the final word of each. Performance
proved to correlate highly with the comprehension score of on the Graduate Record Examination, and subsequently with a
wide range of tasks that could reasonably be assumed to depend on working memory capacity. These extended from prose
comprehension to reasoning and from eye-movement control to fluid intelligence (Engle, 2002; Engle & Kane, 2004). While I
was gratified that working memory was proving to be so important both theoretically and practically, there was a problem. Was
the three component model capable of explaining performance on the working memory span task itself? The central executive
was assumed to be a purely attentional system (Baddeley & Logie, 1999) while neither of the temporary storage systems had
the capacity to process and hold three unrelated sentences.
We were already encountering problems in explaining the fact that immediate verbal memory for brief sentences could reflect
influence of both semantic and phonological information at apparently the same time (Baddeley & Ecob, 1970) and was able
reflect simultaneously the influence of both phonological and visual similarity (Logie, Della Sala, Wynn, & Baddeley, 2000)
This raised the question of how the various streams of phonological, visual, and semantic information could be combined and
 A. D. Baddeley / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 36 (2021); 861–873 869

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/36/6/861/6326039 by guest on 12 September 2022

Fig. 3. The episodic buffer is proposed as a multi-code storage system that links the components of working memory with both LTM and conscious awareness.

held without a multidimensional coding system We were also puzzled by data from two highly intelligent but densely amnesic
patients who as expected scored zero on both the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test and on the delayed prose recall of the
WMS. Atypically however, they performed well on immediate recall of the short story component of the Rivermead test with
scaled scores 12 and 9.5 (Baddeley & Wilson, 2002). How could our model of working memory hold an extended paragraph?
It was time for a rethink.
The result was the proposal of a fourth component to our model, the “Episodic Buffer” (Baddeley, 2000). This was assumed to
be a temporary storage system that was capable of maintaining information based on a range of different codes, bound together
into integrated episodes (see Fig. 3). We assumed that such coded information could arrive either directly through perception,
through the sketchpad or loop, or indirectly from LTM. I made the important further assumption that the contents of the buffer
were accessible to conscious awareness. A final tentative proposal was that access to the buffer was dependent entirely on the
central executive. A significant advantage of our new concept was that it formed a bridge between our own approach and that of
US colleagues notably Cowan’s (1988) embedded-processes model which assumes that working memory reflects the focus of
attention on an activated portion of LTM. The capacity to focus attention in Cowan’s model is broadly equivalent to the central
executive while the activated portion of LTM to the episodic buffer. In short, despite their apparent differences the two models
approach the question of attentional control in broadly similar ways (see relevant chapters in Logie, Camos, & Cowan, 2020 for
further discussion).
Much of our work over the last decade has been concerned with attempting to demonstrate that the concept of an episodic
buffer can indeed be fruitful in generating tractable questions that allow the model to be developed further. For example, we
began as mentioned earlier, with the assumption that the episodic buffer plays an active and essential role in binding features
together into episodes and that information for this is provided via the central executive. By systematically blocking the three
components of the model using dual task methods, we were however able to show that this was incorrect in two ways. First,
the central executive is not essential for providing access and secondly the process of binding typically occurs at points before
accessing the buffer. In the case of visual binding, it appears to occur during the later stages of visual processing while in the case
of language, it typically relies on linguistic processes in LTM. These modifications in turn led us to an area we had previously
neglected, namely a more detailed analysis of the attentional capacities of the central executive. The resulting evidence drove
us to propose a single executive system of limited attentional capacity which could however be divided and biased to focus
principally on either perceptual input or executive processing (Hitch, Allen, & Baddeley, 2020), a proposal that fits neatly with
conclusions from colleagues approaching the issue from the viewpoint of visual attention (Chun, Golomb, & Turk-Browne,
2011).
Our current model is summarized in Figure 4, which emphasizes the various sources of input from perception to working
memory (Baddeley et al., 2019, 2020). Two broad streams of information are proposed, each coming together in the visuospatial
870 A. D. Baddeley / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 36 (2021); 861–873

Fig. 4. The current model illustrating the flow of information from perception to the episodic buffer.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/36/6/861/6326039 by guest on 12 September 2022

or the phonological subsystem. These allow the combination of a range of inputs, in the case of the phonological loop, information
from sound together with linguistic information presented auditorily, visually via printed text, or through in sign language or
lip reading (Wilson & Emmorey, 1998; Rudner & Rönnberg, 2008). In the case of the sketchpad, the confluence allows visual
information on color shape and location to be spatially combined and linked to information based on touch which itself represents
input from a number of kinaesthetic and tactile receptors. Both of these streams are potentially combined in the episodic buffer
and hence made available to conscious awareness. As the dotted lines in Figure 4 indicate, we assume that smell and taste also
have access to the buffer but have not so far investigated this. Finally our model will at some point need further specification the
way in which it controls of action if it is not to be locked into permanent rumination. There is clearly much scope for further
development which I am sure will continue to be enriched by input from neuropsychology.
This leads on to my final reflections on why neuropsychology has proved so fruitful in developing the multicomponent model
of working memory. Part of the answer is that the level of explanation between neuropsychology and the rapidly developing
area of cognitive psychology during this period was close enough for clinicians and mainstream cognitive psychologists to build
common theories, even in areas as complex as working memory. I think it has proved much harder to link the complexities of
working memory with methods available to neuroimaging over this period, although hopefully, this is beginning to change. In
my own case at least, the link with neuropsychology has been made possible by the opportunity to work with active clinicians
who regularly test patients and who in addition to their clinical skills have the expertise to identify patients of potential theoretical
significance and a willingness and ability to find time to collaborate with less clinically sophisticated experimentalists such as
myself. In this respect, I am particularly indebted to Elizabeth Warrington, Barbara Wilson, Sergio Della Sala, Beppe Vallar
and more recently Faraneh Vargha-Khadem. Much, though by no means all of the neuropsychological contribution to the
development of the multicomponent model of working memory has come from single case studies. This can be seen as a
questionable source of evidence, and is probably less widely accepted in North America than Europe where the single case
tradition is more established. Recent examples of such doubts are provided by Morey (2018a, 2018b) and Morey, Rhodes and
Cowan (2019)) although unfortunately, such criticism can reflect apparent difficulties in adequately understanding and reporting
some of the relevant data and procedures (see comments by Logie, 2019: Hanley & Young, 2019, and Shallice & Papagno,
2019). To some extent, this reluctance to accept single case data is understandable as patients with very specific deficits in
capacities of theoretical importance are rare and it is neither ethical nor practical to make such patients widely accessible. It is
therefore particularly important to replicate, preferably using the method of converging operations within each study ensuring
that conclusions are based on a range of different modes of testing, to carefully rule out alternative explanations, hopefully
followed by replications from other laboratories before drawing strong theoretical conclusions (Shallice & Papagno, 2019).
Such theoretical developments should then, in principle, be more widely clinically applicable across patients whose deficits are
complex but no less important. Much of my applied work in neuropsychology has focused on attempting to use developments
in cognitive psychology to the understanding and assessment of memory problems in neuropsychological patients, some based
on developments in our understanding of working memory, but probably more in attempts to deal with problems of LTM.
But that is another story (Baddeley, 2019).

References

Alderman, N. (1996). Central executive deficit and response to operant conditioning methods. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 6, 161–186.
Allport, A. (1984). Auditory verbal short-term memory and conduction aphasia. In Bouma, H., & Bouwhuis, D. G. (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control
and language processes (, pp. 351–364). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 A. D. Baddeley / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 36 (2021); 861–873 871

Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting attentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In Umilta, C., & Moscovitch, M. (Eds.), Attention
and performance XV (, pp. 421–462). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. W., & Spence, J. T. (Eds.), The psychology
of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory (, Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press.
Attneave, F. (1960). In defense of homunculi. In Rosenblith, W. (Ed.), Sensory communication (, pp. 777–782). Cambridge, Mass: Holt, MIT Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1998). The central executive: A concept and some misconceptions. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 4, 523–526.
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.
Baddeley, A. D. (2002). Fractionating the central executive. In Stuss, D., & Knight, R. T. (Eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function (, pp. 246–260). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (2019). Working memories: Postmen, divers and the cognitive revolution. Hove: Routledge.
Baddeley, A. D., Baddeley, H., Bucks, R., & Wilcock, G. K. (2001). Attentional control in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain, 124, 1492–1508.
Baddeley, A. D., Bressi, S., Della Sala, S., Logie, R., & Spinnler, H. (1991). The decline of working memory in Alzheimer’s disease: A longitudinal study.
Brain, 114, 2521–2542.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/36/6/861/6326039 by guest on 12 September 2022

Baddeley, A. D., Logie, R., Bressi, S., Della Sala, S., & Spinnler, H. (1986). Dementia and working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
38A, 603–618.
Baddeley, A. D., Chincotta, D., & Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: Evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 130, 641–657.
Baddeley, A. D., Cocchini, G., Della Sala, S., Logie, R. H., & Spinnler, H. (1999). Working memory and vigilance: Evidence from normal ageing and Alzheimer’s
disease. Brain and Cognition, 41, 87–108.
Baddeley, A. D., Della Sala, S., Papagno, C., & Spinnler, H. (1997). Dual task performance in dysexecutive and non-dysexecutive patients with a frontal lesion.
Neuropsychology, 11, 187–194.
Baddeley, A. D., & Ecob, J. R. (1970). Simultaneous acoustic and semantic coding in short-term memory. Nature, 277, 288–289.
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.
Baddeley, A. D., Grant, S., Wight, E., & Thomson, N. (1973). Imagery and visual working memory. In Rabbitt, P. M. A., & Dornic, S. (Eds.), Attention and
performance V (, pp. 205–217). London: Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In Bower, G. A. (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (, Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York:
Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (2019). The phonological loop as a buffer store: An update. Cortex, 12, 91–106. 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.05.015.
Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. J., & Allen, R. J. (2019). From short-term store to multicomponent working memory: The role of the modal model. Memory &
Cognition, 47, 575–588.
Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. J., & Allen, R. J. (2020). A multicomponent model of working memory. In Logie, R. H., Camos, V., & Cowan, N. (Eds.), Working
memory: State of the science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D., Atkinson, A. L., Hitch, G. J., & Allen, R. J. (2021). Detecting accelerated long-term forgetting: A problem and some solutions. Cortex..
Baddeley, A. D., & Lieberman, K. (1980). Spatial working memory. Attention and Performance VIII, 521–539.
Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple component model. In Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.), Models of working memory:
Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (V111, pp. 28–61). Cambridge University Press.
Baddeley, A. D., Papagno, C., & Vallar, G. (1988). When long-term learning depends on short-term storage. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 586–595.
Baddeley, A. D., Thomson, N., & Buchanan, M. (1975). Word length and the structure of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
14, 575–589.
Baddeley, A. D., & Warrington, E. K. (1970). Amnesia and the distinction between long- and short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 9, 176–189.
Baddeley, A. D., & Wilson, B. (1985). Phonological coding and short-term memory in patients without speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 490–502.
Baddeley, A. D., & Wilson, B. (1988). Comprehension and working memory: A single case neuropsychological study. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(5),
479–498.
Baddeley, A. D., & Wilson, B. A. (1993). A developmental deficit in short-term phonological memory: Implications for language and reading. Memory, 1,
65–78.
Baddeley, A. D., & Wilson, B. A. (2002). Prose recall and amnesia: Implications for the structure of working memory. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1737–1743.
Carlesimo, G. A., Perri, R., Turriziani, P., Tomaiuolo, F., & Caltagirone, C. (2001). Remembering what but not where: Independence of spatial and visual
working memory in the human brain. Cortex, 37(4), 519–534.
Chun, M. M., Golomb, J. D., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2011). A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 73–101.
10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100427.
Conrad, R. (1964). Acoustic confusion in immediate memory. British Journal of Psychology, 55, 75–84.
Conrad, R., & Hull, A. J. (1964). Information, acoustic confusion and memory span. British Journal of Psychology, 55, 429–432.
Cowan, N. (1988). Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information processing system.
Psychological Bulletin, 104, 163–191.
Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. Hove: Psychology Press.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing. A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 19, 450–466.
Della Sala, S., Gray, C., Baddeley, A., Allamano, N., & Wilson, L. (1999). Pattern span: A tool for unwelding visuo-spatial memory. Neuropsychologia, 37,
1189–1199.
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.
Engle, R. W., Conway, A. R. A., Tuholski, S. W., & Shisler, R. J. (1995). A resource account of inhibition. Psychological Sciences, 6, 122–125.
872 A. D. Baddeley / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 36 (2021); 861–873

Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity and two-factor theory of cognitive control. In Ross, B. (Ed.), The psychology
of Learning and motivation (, pp. 145–199). New York: Elsevier.
Farah, M. J., Hammond, K. M., Levine, D. N., & Calvanio, R. (1988). Visual and spatial mental imagery: Dissociable systems of representation. Cognitive
Psychology, 20(4), 439–462.
Gärtner, A., & Strobel, A. (2021). Individual differences in inhibitory control: A latent variable analysis. Journal of Cognition, 4, 17. 10.5334/joc.150.
Gathercole, S., & Baddeley, A. (1989a). Evaluation of the role of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in children: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Memory and Language, 28, 200–213.
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1989b). The role of phonological memory in normal and disordered language development. In von Euler, C., Lundberg,
I., & Lennerstrand, G. (Eds.), Brain and reading (, pp. 245–255). London: Macmillan Press.
Gathercole, S., & Baddeley, A. (1990). Phonological memory deficits in language-disordered children: Is there a causal connection? Journal of Memory &
Language, 29, 336–360.
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1996). The childrens’ test of nonword repetition. London: Psychological Corporation UK.
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Knight, C., & Stegmann, Z. (2004). Working memory skills and educational attainment: Evidence from National Curriculum
assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 40, 1–16.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/36/6/861/6326039 by guest on 12 September 2022

Hanley, J. R., & Young, A. W. (2019). ELD revisited: A second look at a neuropsychological impairment of working memory affecting retention of visuo-spatial
material. Cortex, 112, 172–179.
Hitch, G. J., Allen, R. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2020). Attention and binding in visual working memory: Two forms of attention and two kinds of buffer. Attention,
Perception & Psychophysics, 82, 280–293. 10.3758/s13414-019-01837-x.
Klauer, K. C., & Zhao, Z. (2004). Double dissociations in visual and spatial short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 355–381.
Logie, R. H. (1986). Visuo-spatial processing in working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experiment Psychology, 38A, 229–247.
Logie, R. H. (2019). Converging sources of evidence and theory integration in working memory: A commentary on Morey, Rhodes, and Cowan (2019). Cortex,
112, 162–171. 10.1016/j.cortex.2019.01.030.
Logie, R. H., Cocchini, G., Delia Sala, S., & Baddeley, A. D. (2004). Is there a specific executive capacity for dual task co-ordination? Evidence from Alzheimer’s
disease. Neuropsychology, 18, 504–513. 10.1037/0894-4105.18.3.504.
Logie, R. H., Della Sala, S., Wynn, V., & Baddeley, A. D. (2000). Visual similarity effects in immediate serial recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 53A, 626–646.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their
contributions to complex "frontal lobe" tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100.
Morey, C. (2018a). The case against specialized visual-spatial short-term memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 849–883.
Morey, C. (2018b). Correction to Morey. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 1246.
Morey, C., Rhodes, S., & Cowan, N. (2019). Sensory-motor integration and brain lesions: Progress toward explaining domain-specific phenomena within
domain-general working memory. Cortex, 112, 149–161.
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1983). Attention to action-willed and automatic control of behaviour. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 21(5), 354–354.
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behaviour. In Davidson, R. J., Schwartz, G. E., & Shapiro, D. (Eds.),
Consciousness and self-regulation. Advances in research and theory (, Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum Press.
Papagno, C., Valentine, T., & Baddeley, A. D. (1991). Phonological short-term memory and foreign language vocabulary learning. Journal of Memory and
Language, 30, 331–347.
Papagno, C., & Vallar, G. (1992). Phonological short-term memory and the learning of novel words: The effect of phonological similarity and item length.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 47–67.
Parra, M. A., Abrahams, S., Fabi, K., Logie, R., Luzzi, S., & Della Sala, S. (2009). Short-term memory binding deficits in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain, 132,
1057–1066.
Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198.
Phillips, W. A., & Baddeley, A. D. (1971). Reaction time and short-term visual memory. Psychonomic Science, 22, 73–74.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). The cost of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124,
207–231.
Rudner, M., & Rönnberg, J. (2008). The role of the episodic buffer in working memory for language processing. Cognitive Processing, 9, 19–28.
Saeki, E., Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. J., & Saito, S. (2013). Breaking a habit: A further role of the phonological loop in action control. Memory & Cognition,
41, 1065–1078. 10.3758/s13421-013-0320-y.
Shallice, T. (1988). From neuropsychology to mental structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shallice, T. (2002). Fractionation of the supervisory system. In Stuss, D. T., & Knight, R. T. (Eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function (, pp. 261–277). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Shallice, T., & Papagno, C. (2019). Impairments of auditory-verbal short-term memory: Do selective deficits of the input phonological buffer exist? Cortex,
112, 107–121. 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.10.004.
Shallice, T., & Warrington, E. K. (1970). Independent functioning of verbal memory stores: A neuropsychological study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 22, 261–273.
Stuss, D. T., & Benson, D. F. (1984). Neuropsychological studies of the frontal lobes. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 3–28. 1037/0033-2909.95.1.3.
Sunderland, A., Harris, J. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1983). Do laboratory tests predict everyday memory? A neuropsychological study. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 22, 341–357. 10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90229-3.
Vallar, G., & Baddeley, A. D. (1984a). Fractionation of working memory. Neuropsychological evidence for a phonological short-term store. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 23, 151–161.
Vallar, G., & Baddeley, A. D. (1984b). Phonological short-term store, phonological processing and sentence comprehension: A neuropsychological case study.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 1, 121–141.
Vallar, G., & Baddeley, A. D. (1987). Phonological short-term store and sentence processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 4, 417–438.
Vallar, G., Corno, M., & Basso, A. (1992). Auditory and visual verbal short-term memory in aphasia. Cortex, 28, 383–389.
 A. D. Baddeley / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 36 (2021); 861–873 873

Vallar, G., & Papagno, C. (2002). Neuropsychological impairments of verbal short-term memory. In Baddeley, A. D., Kopelman, M. D., & Wilson, B. A. (Eds.),
Handbook of memory disorders (2nd ed., pp. 249–270). Chichester: Wiley.
Warrington, E. K., & Baddeley, A. D. (1974). Amnesia and memory for visual location. Neuropsychologia, 12, 257–263.
Wilson, B. A., Baddeley, A. D., & Young, A. W. (1999). LE, a person who lost her "Mind’s Eye". Neurocase, 5, 119–127.
Wilson, B. A., Cockburn, J., Baddeley, A. D., & Hiorns, R. (1989). The development and validation of a test battery for detecting and monitoring everyday
memory problems. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 11, 855–870.
Wilson, M., & Emmorey, K. (1998). A "word length effect" for sign language: Further evidence for the role of language in structuring working memory. Memory
& Cognition, 26, 584–590.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/36/6/861/6326039 by guest on 12 September 2022