CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 836Memory Processes and InfluencesNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy Development

Exploring the Articulatory Loop

Baddeley, Alan, Lewis, Vivien, Vallar, Giuseppe·1984·The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A
DOI 10.1080/14640748408402157
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A series of five experiments explore the influence of articulatory suppression on immediate memory for auditorily presented items with a view to testing the revised concept of an articulatory loop. Experiments 1, 2 and 3 demonstrate that the phonological similarity effect is not abolished by articulatory suppression, whether this occurs only at input or at both input and recall. Experiments 4 and 5 show that the tendency for long words to be less well remembered than short is abolished by articulatory suppression, even when presentation is auditory, provided suppression occurs during both input and recall. These results are consistent with the concept of a loop comprising a phonological store, which is responsible for the phonological similarity effect, coupled with an articulatory rehearsal process that gives rise to the word length effect.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14640748408402157

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Articulatory suppression is a commonly used secondary task that is thought to interfere with inner speech use.

    “Following this, participants also attempted a novel version of the inner-speech task that included articulatory suppression, a commonly used secondary task that is thought to interfere with inner speech use (e.g. Baddeley et al., 1984; Williams et al., 2012).”

    From The brain's conversation with itself: neural substrates of dialogic inner speech (2016) · cites this paper as Baddeley et al., 1984

  • Articulatory suppression (engaging the articulators in a separate task such as repeating days of the week) has been shown to disrupt memory for verbal material in numerous studies.

    “A typical verbal distractor method is articulatory suppression: engaging the articulators in a separate task (such as repeating days of the week) has been shown to disrupt memory for verbal material in numerous studies (e.g., Baddeley, Lewis & Vallar, 1984).”

    From Inner Speech: Development, Cognitive Functions, Phenomenology, and Neurobiology (2015) · cites this paper as Baddeley, Lewis & Vallar, 1984

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baddeley, A., Lewis, V., & Vallar, G.
Affiliations
  • MRC Applied Psychology Unit, Cambridge, U.K.
  • University of Milan (IT)
ORCID
Venue
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1984-05
Volume
36
Issue
2
Pages
233-252
ISSN
  • 0272-4987 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0740
DOI
10.1080/14640748408402157
OpenAlex
W2044435206
Cited by
836
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 34
FWCI
5.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
phonological loop, articulatory suppression, immediate memory, phonological similarity effect, word length effect, phonological store, auditory presentation, rehearsal, working memory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review