Can Intrinsic and Extrinsic Metacognitive Cues Shield Against Distraction in Problem Solving?

Abstract

We investigated the capacity for two different forms of metacognitive cue to shield against auditory distraction in problem solving with Compound Remote Associates Tasks (CRATs). Experiment 1 demonstrated that an intrinsic metacognitive cue in the form of processing disfluency (manipulated using an easy-to-read vs. difficult-to-read font) could increase focal task engagement so as to mitigate the detrimental impact of distraction on solution rates for CRATs. Experiment 2 showed that an extrinsic metacognitive cue that took the form of an incentive for good task performance (i.e. 80% or better CRAT solutions) could likewise eliminate the negative impact of distraction on CRAT solution rates. Overall, these findings support the view that both intrinsic and extrinsic metacognitive cues have remarkably similar effects. This suggests that metacognitive cues operate via a common underlying mechanism whereby a participant applies increased focal attention to the primary task so as to ensure more steadfast task engagement that is not so easily diverted by task-irrelevant stimuli.

Why are background telephone conversations distracting?

“…In the current study, task-engagement was increased by making the text disfluent, thereby rendering it more difficult to read. However, it is likely that other manipulations of task-engagement such as incentive for good task performance can have similar distraction-shielding effects (Ball et al, 2018;Seli et al, 2017).…”

“…However, if the halfalogue is only more disruptive than the dialogue for the normal speech condition, then the semantic (un)predictability account would prevail (Emberson et al, 2010;Monk, Fellas, & Ley, 2004;Norman & Bennett, 2014 font shields against distraction in paradigms that are theoretically-oriented (Hughes et al, 2013;Marsh, Sörqvist, & Hughes, 2015), and for tasks that hold applied relevance for office and scholastic environments such as proofreading and reading comprehension (Faber, Mills, Kopp, & D'mello, 2017;Halin, 2016;Halin, Marsh, Haga et al, 2014;Halin, Marsh, Hellman et al, 2014). A typical explanation of these findings is that the perceptually disfluent font acts as a metacognitive cue that the task is difficult (e.g., Bjork, Dunlosky, & Kornell, 2013;Thompson, 2010), with the metacognitive system instigating a compensatory upward shift in task-engagement (or concentration) such that an individual can maintain a desired performance level Eggemeir, Crabtree, & LaPointe, 1983; see also Ball, Threadgold, Solowiej, & Marsh, 2018). It is suggested that the greater task-engagement that the perceptually disfluent font demands, leads to a more steadfast locus of attention (e.g., unexpected irrelevant stimuli are less likely to capture attention away from the focal task) and reduces processing (and therefore awareness) of the surrounding environment .…”

“…These preferred sounds could also mask the external sounds, thereby reducing their intelligibility. However, if the preference is music, there is a growing literature that task-irrelevant background music can impair performance on visuallybased tasks, regardless of an individual's preference for the musical piece (see, e.g., Perham & Currie, 2014: Perham & Vizard, 2011Threadgold, Marsh, & Ball, 2018). Similarly, it should be noted that the halfalogue effect might be expected to occur much less in call center settings.…”

The Impact of Cognitive Load on the Cardiac Orienting Response to Auditory Structural Features during Natural Radio Listening Situations

“…Although our reasoning was to keep participants engaged in this difficult task, the added motivation may have impacted our results. For example, Ball, Threadgold, Solowiej, and Marsh (2018) demonstrated that motivation can impact the degree to which background speech impairs verbally-based problem solving and it is possible, therefore, that inducing motivation may have diminished the effectiveness of the task-difficulty manipulation in modulating distraction through top-down control (cf. Ball et al, 2018; Hughes et al, 2013).…”

The susceptibility of compound remote associate problems to disruption by irrelevant sound: a Window onto the component processes underpinning creative cognition?

“…Similarly, limiting opportunities for subvocalisation by presenting task-irrelevant sounds also hampers concurrent CRAT performance (Ball et al, 2018;Threadgold et al, 2019). For example, Threadgold et al (2019) demonstrated that meaningless irrelevant sound (Spanish vocal music presented to monolingual English-speaking participants; Experiment 1) or non-vocal, instrumental music (Experiment 2) impaired solution accuracy for CRAT problems relative to quiet.…”