Cited by 61Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory Processes and Influences

Tasks for assessment of the episodic buffer: A systematic review.

Open access
Nobre, Alexandre de Pontes, Rodrigues, Jaqueline de Carvalho, Sbicigo, Juliana Burges, Piccolo, Luciane da Rosa, Zortea, Maxciel, Junior, Sérgio Duarte, de Salles, Jerusa Fumagalli·2013·Psychology & Neuroscience

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to review the tasks that have been used to assess the functioning of the episodic buffer in Baddeley's multicomponent model of working memory. A systematic review of studies published from January 2000 to February 2013 was conducted. The search term "episodic buffer" was used in the Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO, PubMed, Embase, and BVS-Psi databases. The selected articles consisted of empirical studies that used tasks to assess the episodic buffer. Theoretical and review papers and studies with animals were excluded. The final sample comprised 36 papers. The tasks were categorized as experimental tasks or standardized tests. The experimental tasks were grouped by modality (unimodal or crossmodal) and described according to four criteria: task to be performed, type of stimulus used, secondary task employed, if any, and retention interval. The standardized tests included classical measures of working memory. Some tasks were found not to meet experimental criteria that were needed to evaluate the episodic buffer. Moreover, some of the standardized tests did not provide theoretical arguments or empirical evidence that the episodic buffer is recruited to perform them. The results are discussed in the context of the multicomponent model of working memory.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3922/j.psns.2013.3.10

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nobre, A. D. P., Rodrigues, J. D. C., Sbicigo, J. B., Piccolo, L. D. R., Zortea, M., Junior, S. D., & de Salles, J. F.
Affiliations
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
Venue
Psychology & Neuroscience
Published
2013-07
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
331-343
ISSN
  • 1983-3288 (ISSN-L)
  • 1984-3054
OpenAlex
W1991791514
Cited by
60
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
4.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology & Neuroscience (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Redalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
episodic buffer, working memory assessment, experimental tasks, standardized testing, retention interval, secondary task, stimulus modality

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