Auditory encoding in visual short-term recall: effects of noise intensity and spatial location

Colle, Herbert A.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90403-x

Cited by 138 publications

(154 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

137

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Taken in isolation, the latter aspect is consistent with earlier findings showing that the irrelevant-sound effect is not sensitive to the sound level of the auditory distractors when distractors are displayed via headphones at 40 dB and above (see, e.g., Colle, 1980;Ellermeier & Hellbrück, 1998;Jones, Miles, & Page, 1990). Sound level is one important cue to the sagittal distance of a sound source.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Sound source location modulates the irrelevant-sound effect

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Sound source location modulates the irrelevant-sound effect

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Contrary to this prediction, it was shown that two alternating syllables evoke a reliable disruption which does not increase with adding further syllables Tremblay & Jones, 1998). Third, the finding that the irrelevant speech effect is independent from sound intensity in a wide dynamic range (Colle, 1980;Ellermeier & Hellbrü ck, 1998) is clearly not in line with an attention capture account. Finally, the attention capture account predicts that changing state speech should interfere with any attention-demanding task, i.e., the disruption should be domain-general.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Furthermore, in the present study an unknown foreign language was used as irrelevant speech, whereas Elliott used words from the native language of the participants. Although the irrelevant speech effect has been shown to be independent of intensity (Colle, 1980;Ellermeier & Hellbrü ck, 1998) and meaningfulness (Buchner, Irmen, & Erdfelder, 1996;Klatte et al, 1995) in adults, this may not hold for children. If, as Elliott argues, the ISE in children stems from their inability to focus attention on the task in the presence of irrelevant sounds, children should be more impaired by meaningful speech and loud sounds.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The irrelevant sound effect in short-term memory: Is there developmental change?

Klatte

Lachmann

Schlittmeier

et al. 2010

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With two experiments, effects of irrelevant speech and classroom noise on serial recall of common nouns presented pictorially were investigated in children and adults. Experiment 1 used fixed list lengths for children (first graders) and adults. Experiment 2 used list lengths adjusted to participants' (secondÁthird graders, adults) individual spans. In both experiments, children and adults were equally impaired by irrelevant speech. This contrasts with a related study (differences in methodology) by Elliott (2002), who reported severe increase in the detrimental impact of irrelevant speech with decreasing age. In both experiments, classroom noise had no effect in overall analyses. For Experiment 1, however, separate group analyses revealed impairment in children. Results suggest that effects of irrelevant sounds on serial recall stem from two separate mechanisms: Specific interference due to the sounds' automatic access to short-term memory, and/or attention capture. Only for the latter there is developmental change.

show abstract

“…The effect also occurs regardless of whether the items to be memorized are presented visually (Salame & Baddeley, 1982) or auditorily (Hanley & Broadbent, 1987), regardless of whether the irrelevant speech occurs at presentation or during the retention interval (Miles, Jones, & Madden, 1991), whether it comprises meaningful or meaningless information (Colle & Welsh, 1976;Jones, Miles, & Page, 1990;LeCompte, 1994;Salame & Baddeley, 1989) or even if the irrelevant speech is being played backwards . However, the effect appears not to be a simple distraction, since loud bursts of noise have little or no effect on the serial recall task (Colle, 1980;Salame & Baddeley, 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

The irrelevant speech effect: a PET study

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Positron emission tomography (PET) was performed in normal volunteers during a serial recall task under the influence of irrelevant speech comprising both single item repetition and multi-item sequences. An interaction approach was used to identify brain areas specifically related to the irrelevant speech effect. We interpreted activations as compensatory recruitment of complementary working memory processing, and decreased activity in terms of suppression of task relevant areas invoked by the irrelevant speech. The interaction between the distractors and working memory revealed a significant effect in the left, and to a lesser extent in the right, superior temporal region, indicating that initial phonological processing was relatively suppressed. Additional areas of decreased activity were observed in an a priori defined cortical network related to verbal working memory, incorporating the bilateral superior temporal and inferior/middle frontal cortices extending into Broca's area on the left. We also observed a weak activation in the left inferior parietal cortex, a region suggested to reflect the phonological store, the subcomponent where the interference is assumed to take place. The results suggest that the irrelevant speech effect is correlated with and thus tentatively may be explained in terms of a suppression of components of the verbal working memory network as outlined. The results can be interpreted in terms of inhibitory top-down attentional mechanisms attenuating the influence of the irrelevant speech, although additional studies are clearly necessary to more fully characterize the nature of this phenomenon and its theoretical implications for existing short-term memory models.

show abstract

Auditory encoding in visual short-term recall: effects of noise intensity and spatial location

Cited by 138 publications

References 24 publications

Sound source location modulates the irrelevant-sound effect

Sound source location modulates the irrelevant-sound effect

The irrelevant sound effect in short-term memory: Is there developmental change?

The irrelevant speech effect: a PET study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About