Constraints on Awareness, Attention, Processing, and Memory: Some Recent Investigations with Ignored Speech

Cowan, Nelson; Wood, Noelle L.

doi:10.1006/ccog.1997.0300

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is a different measure to the effects of irrelevant sound on serial recall that could arguably be observed without the participant displaying any great awareness of the content of the to-be-ignored sound (see Cowan & Wood, 1997, for a discussion of related issues). Most crucially, the irrelevant sound effect generally does not show any effect of semantics (Buchner, Irmen, & Erdfelder, 1996) whereas one's own namethe unattended stimulus in the study by Conway et al-is salient precisely because it is intrinsically meaningful to the person involved.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Irrelevant Sound Phenomenon Revisited: What Role for Working Memory Capacity?

Beaman¹

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

120

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-span individuals (as measured by the operation span [OSPAN] technique) are less likely than lowspan individuals to notice their own names in an unattended auditory stream (A. R. A. Conway, N. Cowan, & M. F. Bunting, 2001). The possibility that OSPAN accounts for individual differences in auditory distraction on an immediate recall test was examined. There was no evidence that high-OSPAN participants were more resistant to the disruption caused by irrelevant speech in serial or in free recall. Low-OSPAN participants did, however, make more semantically related intrusion errors from the irrelevant sound stream in a free recall test (Experiment 4). Results suggest that OSPAN mediates semantic components of auditory distraction dissociable from other aspects of the irrelevant sound effect. I thank Al Harvey for critical readings of earlier versions of this article, Natalie Lynch for running Experiment 3, and Sophie Scott for useful discussions. Nelson Cowan and Emily Elliott suggested Experiment 3.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Irrelevant Sound Phenomenon Revisited: What Role for Working Memory Capacity?

Beaman¹

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

120

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…People can engage in multiple tasks and multilevel processing as more diverse material enters their consciousness, but they suffer a decrement in the amount of processing capacity available. Therefore, primary task cues (i.e., understanding the movie) become the focus, at the expense of secondary task cues (i.e., PPLs) as a form of active coping strategy (Eysenck, 1982;Worth & Mackie, 1987;Cowan & Wood, 1997;Conway, Cowan & Bunting, 2001).…”

Section: Cognitive Effortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audience Engagement and its Effects on Product Placement Recognition

Scott

Craig‐Lees

2010

Journal of Promotion Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the feasibility of examining, via self-reported measures, the relationship between audiences' perceptions of the quality of their cognitive and emotional engagement with an entertainment piece and the memory trace created by a product placement. This field-based quasi-experiment uses a within-subject design and targets teenagers. Although limited by the viability of available, wholly suitable measurement scales, this exploratory study finds that audience engagement (which consists of pleasure, arousal, and cognitive effort) and star liking can be measured by self-reports after consumers watch a movie and that star liking, cognitive effort, and pleasure affect recognition for product placements.

show abstract

“…One approach for manipulating attention is to impose a dual-task that divides attentional resources (Cowan and Wood, 1997). For example, subjects might perform a digit-monitoring task while concurrently trying to encode target stimuli such as words.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementary attentional components of successful memory encoding

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attention during encoding improves later memory, but how this happens is poorly understood. To investigate the role of attention in memory formation, we combined a variant of a spatial attention cuing task with a subsequent memory fMRI design. Scene stimuli were presented in the periphery to either the left or right of fixation, preceded by a central face cue whose gaze oriented attention to the probable location of the scene. We contrasted activity for scenes appearing in cued versus uncued locations to identify: (1) regions where cuing facilitated processing, and (2) regions involved in reorienting. We then tested how activity in these facilitation and reorienting regions of interest predicted subsequent long-term memory for individual scenes. In facilitation regions such as parahippocampal cortex, greater activity during encoding predicted memory success. In reorienting regions such as right temporoparietal junction, greater activity during encoding predicted memory failure. We interpret these results as evidence that memory formation benefits from attentional facilitation of perceptual processing combined with suppression of the ventral attention network to prevent reorienting to distractors.

show abstract

Constraints on Awareness, Attention, Processing, and Memory: Some Recent Investigations with Ignored Speech

Cited by 13 publications

References 36 publications

The Irrelevant Sound Phenomenon Revisited: What Role for Working Memory Capacity?

The Irrelevant Sound Phenomenon Revisited: What Role for Working Memory Capacity?

Audience Engagement and its Effects on Product Placement Recognition

Complementary attentional components of successful memory encoding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About