Critically evaluate Baddeley’s 2000 model of working memory

This paper aims to critically evaluate Baddeley’s most recent Working Memory (WM)

model proposed by Baddeley (2000). The WM model was a model proposed upon criticizing

that the Multi-Store Memory model by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) was oversimplified.

According to Baddeley & Hitch (1974), the WM model is described as a system that blends

the functions of short-term memory (STM) and cognitive processing. The original theoretical

WM model consists of 3 components, the Central Executive (CE), which is the attentional

control system and two different ‘slave’ systems, which is the Phonological Loop (PL) and

Visuospatial Sketchpad (VSSP). The CE manages the activity in working memory and

allocates the information between the two slave systems. The PL is a temporary storage

system which stores verbal or acoustic information, while the VSSP stores visual and spatial

information (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). The slave systems have different responsibilities and

work independently of one another. Moreover, a new component, the Episodic Buffer (EB)

was being introduced into the WM model by Baddeley (2000). The EB acts as an integrative

component linking visual and acoustic information from both PL and VSSP to bind the

combination of both information to form integrated episodes and then stored (Baddeley,

2000, 2003). 

The working memory (WM) model devised by Baddeley has been widely used and

studied. This statement can be supported by (Cowan, 2014) as just the chapter of Baddeley

and Hitch (1974) already had over 7400 citations. Besides that, Welshon (2010) mentioned

that as of 2007, there are already over 15,000 studies containing the word ‘working

memory’.  There are also multiple studies (Bolkan et al., 2017; Chein et al., 2011; Moore et
al., 2013; Osaka et al., 2003) that can be found relevant to the working memory from the

perspective of cognitive neuroscience, which is another scientific area of study which

overlaps with cognitive psychology. This shows the importance and how huge of a role it

plays in the cognitive neuroscience field, which also further supports the validity of the WM

model. Furthermore, the model is also surprisingly durable (Baddeley, 2000), seeing how it

has not been replaced by other competing models since its inception over the decades further

supports the reliability of this model. 

Case studies of patients with neuropsychological deficits can also contribute in

supporting evidence for the WM model. For example, the KF case study (Coughlan &

Warrington, 1981). KF suffers from severe brain damage, which heavily impairs his short-

term memory capacity. However, results (Shallice & Warrington, 1970) have shown that

KF’s main impairment was only in his verbal memory as patient KF is unable to store

information in his PL, while his visual related memory remains unaffected. This shows that

the brain area damaged is related to verbal information processing systems instead of visual

information related systems, which means that there are separate domains in the WM model

for processing visual and verbal information. Besides that, Huntley and Howard (2010) stated

that in the case of patients with Alzheimer’s disease, different components of the WM model

are affected at different stages of Alzheimer’s disease. To be more specific, the CE is first

affected at an early stage of Alzheimer’s, with the subsidiary components of the WM model

impaired later. This also implies that different domains exist within the WM model. These

real-life examples have generated findings supporting the characteristics for the WM model,

implying that the WM model has high ecological validity. 

 
 In addition, there are also supporting evidence from several brain scanning studies

showing that different components of the WM model activate different parts of the brain.

According to Funahashi (2017), some cortical and subcortical systems, more specifically

being the prefrontal cortex (Braver, 1997) seem to be activated by the CE. Braver (1997)

found that as the tasks for CE get more demanding, the activity in the area of the prefrontal

cortex gets progressively active as well, which implies that the CE relies more on the

prefrontal cortex. Several similar brain imaging studies have been conducted as well to verify

whether or not different parts of the brain are related to different components of the WM

model. According to Aboitiz, Aboitiz & Garcia (2010), the PL is connected to the posterior

temporal areas with the inferior parietal lobe as well as the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. At

the same time, The visual related working memory tasks which represent the VSSP activates

the bilateral prefrontal and superior parietal cortices (Na et al., 2000). This provides support

for the division of the separate verbal and visual store as results show that they are active in

different parts of the brain, which further supports this theoretical framework of Baddeley’s. 

Nonetheless, the most important part of this theoretical model, the precise role of the

CE is still poorly understood (RepovŠ & Baddeley, 2006). Upon updating the WM model,

Baddeley (2000) still refers the CE as an attentional control system that manages and controls

the information between the other subcomponents of the WM model, but Andrade (2001)

argues that there has not been a concise and clear explanation as to how the CE functions that

way. Seeing how the CE is emphasized in multiple studies for the WM model (Baddeley &

Hitch, 1974; Baddeley, 2000, 2003), you would think that the most important component in

this model would have the most findings related. Alas, even Baddeley (1996, p.6) admitted

that the CE is not well understood, “Our initial specification of the central executive was so

vague as to serve as little more than a ragbag into which could be stuffed all the complex
strategy selection, planning, and retrieval checking that clearly goes on when subjects

perform even the apparently simple digit task.” This remains one of the limitations of the

model because of the lack of information in this sense requires more future research to prove

the validity of the CE. 

In addition to the weaknesses of this model, is the lack of information related to the

VSSP. As of 2019, there are approximately 42,400 related articles for the ‘phonological loop’

in Google Scholar. This shows that there is multiple extensive research related to the PL in

comparison with ‘visuospatial sketchpad’ with only about 10,800 related articles that can be

found in Google Scholar. This implies how the VSSP has been under-investigated and lack of

research when compared with its counterpart ‘slave’ system in the WM model. Apart from

that, the VSSP lacks details in its internal system of the interplay between the visual and

spatial processing parts. As stated in Baddeley (2000), there is only a single system that

involves the visual and spatial processing of information. It would make more sense to have

two different processing pathways for visual and spatial information as proposed by Mishkin,

Ungerleider & Macko (1983). There are also other supporting evidence for the independent

processing systems for visual and spatial information (Smith & Jonides, 1997), which have

found that participants when given different spatial and visual tasks, PET scans of the results

have shown a clear pattern of different parts of the brain being activated. The results of this

study also have similar findings as Sala, Rämä, & Courtney (2003)’s study. 
 References

Aboitiz, F., Aboitiz, S., & García, R. R. (2010). The phonological loop: a key innovation in

human evolution. Current Anthropology, 51(S1), S55-S65.

Andrade, J. (2001). The working memory model: Consensus, controversy, and future

directions. In J. Andrade (Ed.) Working Memory in Perspective. Psychology Press:

East Sussex, U.K. 

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control

processes. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89-195). Academic

Press.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working Memory. Psychology of Learning and

Motivation, 47–89. doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60452-1

Baddeley, A. (1996). Exploring the Central Executive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental

Psychology Section A, 49(1), 5–28. doi:10.1080/713755608

Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01538-2 

Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839. doi:10.1038/nrn1201 

Braver, T. S., Cohen, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Jonides, J., Smith, E. E., & Noll, D. C. (1997). A

Parametric Study of Prefrontal Cortex Involvement in Human Working Memory.

NeuroImage, 5(1), 49–62. doi:10.1006/nimg.1996.0247 

Bolkan, S. S., Stujenske, J. M., Parnaudeau, S., Spellman, T. J., Rauffenbart, C., Abbas, A.

I., ... & Kellendonk, C. (2017). Thalamic projections sustain prefrontal activity during

working memory maintenance. Nature Neuroscience, 20(7), 987.

Chai, W. J., Abd Hamid, A. I., & Abdullah, J. M. (2018). Working Memory From the

Psychological and Neurosciences Perspectives: A Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. 

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00401 

Chein, J. M., Moore, A. B., & Conway, A. R. (2011). Domain-general mechanisms of complex

working memory span. NeuroImage, 54(1), 550-559.

Coughlan, A. K., & Warrington, E. K. (1981). The impairment of verbal semantic memory: a

single case study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 44(12), 1079–

1083. doi:10.1136/jnnp.44.12.1079 

Cowan, N. (2014). Working Memory Underpins Cognitive Development, Learning, and

Education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 197–223.

Funahashi, S. (2017). Working Memory in the Prefrontal Cortex. Brain Sciences, 7(12), 49.

doi:10.3390/brainsci7050049 

Huntley, J. D., & Howard, R. J. (2010). Working memory in early Alzheimer’s disease: a

neuropsychological review. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 25(2), 121–

132. doi:10.1002/gps.2314 

Logie, R. H., Zucco, G. M., & Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Interference with visual short-term

memory. Acta Psychologica, 75(1), 55–74. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(90)90066-o 

Mishkin, M., Ungerleider, L. G., & Macko, K. A. (1983). Object vision and spatial vision: two

cortical pathways. Trends in Neurosciences, 6, 414–417. doi:10.1016/0166-

2236(83)90190-x 

Moore, A. B., Li, Z., Tyner, C. E., Hu, X., & Crosson, B. (2013). Bilateral basal ganglia

activity in verbal working memory. Brain and language, 125(3), 316-323.

Na, D. G., Ryu, J. W., Byun, H. S., Choi, D. S., Lee, E. J., Chung, W. I., … Han, B. K. (2000).

Functional MR Imaging of Working Memory in the Human Brain. Korean Journal of

Radiology, 1(1), 19. doi:10.3348/kjr.2000.1.1.19 

(2003). The neural basis of individual differences in working memory capacity: an

fMRI study. NeuroImage, 18(3), 789-797.

RepovŠ, G., & Baddeley, A. (2006). The multi-component model of working memory:

Explorations in experimental cognitive psychology. Neuroscience, 139(1), 5–21

Sala, J. B., Rämä, P., & Courtney, S. M. (2003). Functional topography of a distributed neural

system for spatial and nonspatial information maintenance in working memory.

Neuropsychologia, 41(3), 341–356. doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00166-5 

Schmolck, H., Kensinger, E. A., Corkin, S., & Squire, L. R. (2002). Semantic knowledge in

patient H.M. and other patients with bilateral medial and lateral temporal lobe lesions.

Hippocampus, 12(4), 520–533. doi:10.1002/hipo.10039 

Shallice, T., & Warrington, E. K. (1970). Independent Functioning of Verbal Memory Stores:

A Neuropsychological Study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22(2),

261–273. doi:10.1080/00335557043000203 

Smith, E. E., & Jonides, J. (1997). Working Memory: A View from Neuroimaging. Cognitive

Psychology, 33(1), 5–42. doi:10.1006/cogp.1997.0658 

Welshon, R. (2010). Working memory, neuroanatomy, and archaeology. Current

Anthropology, 51(S1), S191-S199.