Abstract
I present an account of the origins and development of the multicomponent approach to working memory, making a distinction between the overall theoretical framework, which has remained relatively stable, and the attempts to build more specific models within this framework. I follow this with a brief discussion of alternative models and their relationship to the framework. I conclude with speculations on further developments and a comment on the value of attempting to apply models and theories beyond the laboratory studies on which they are typically based.
WORKING MEMORY: THEORIES, MODELS, AND CONTROVERSIES
I was honored, pleased, and challenged by the invitation to write this prefatory chapter, pleased because it offered the chance to take a broad and somewhat autobiographical view of my principal area of interest, working memory (WM), but challenged by the potential magnitude of the task. The topic of working memory has increased dramatically in citation counts since the early years, not all of course related to or supportive of my own work, but a recent attempt to review it (Baddeley 2007) ended with more than 50 pages of references. What follows is a partial, as opposed to impartial, account of the origins of the concept of multicomponent working memory (M-WM) and of my own views on its subsequent development.
CONCLUSION
So where does this leave our early question of what makes a good theory? Clearly, my own preference has been for Toulmin’s view of theories as maps, coupled with the Lakatos criterion of judging success by productiveness rather than predictive accuracy. However, as we begin to fill in the empty spaces on the theoretical map, it hopefully will be increasingly possible to develop interlinked and more detailed models of the components of WM and their mode of interaction.
