Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: Implications for the structure of working memory

Salamé, Pierre; Baddeley, Alan

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(82)90521-7

Cited by 832 publications

(864 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

784

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…CA also removes irrelevant sound effects for visual presentation (Salamé & Baddeley, 1982;etc) and Logie (1986) has shown dissociations between the effects of irrelevant speech and irrelevant pictures on sequence recall via either rote rehearsal (phonological) or a peg-word mnemonic (visual). There is a double dissociation in the neuropsychological literature, with some patients impaired in visual and/or spatial recall but not in phonological ISR, and with others showing the opposite pattern (Basso, et al, 1982;Hanley, et al, 1991;de Renzi & Nichelli, 1975;Trojano & Grossi, 1995;Warrington & Shallice, 1969).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For visual materials, therefore, CA results in the abolition of effects such as the phonological similarity effect (PSE; Estes, 1973;Levy, 1971;Murray, 1968;etc. ) and the irrelevant sound effect (ISE; Colle & Welsh, 1976;Salamé & Baddeley, 1982;etc.). By contrast, auditory presentation is assumed to result in direct access to the phonological store, allowing these effects to persist even in the presence of CA throughout presentation and recall.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Repetition learning in the immediate serial recall of visual and auditory materials.

Page¹,

Cumming²,

Norris³

et al. 2006

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In five experiments a Hebb repetition effect, that is, improved immediate serial recall of an (unannounced) repeating list, was demonstrated in the immediate serial recall of visual materials, even when use of phonological STM was blocked by concurrent articulation. The learning of a repeatedly presented letter-list in one modality (auditory or visual) did not transfer to give improved performance on the same list in the other modality. This result was not replicated for word lists, however, for which asymmetric transfer was observed.Inferences are made about the structure of short-term memory and about the nature of the Hebb repetition effect.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repetition learning in the immediate serial recall of visual and auditory materials.

Page¹,

Cumming²,

Norris³

et al. 2006

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This effect occurs despite the fact that the irrelevant speech is independent of the serial recall task and despite the fact that subjects are explicitly instructed to ignore the speech (Jones, 1993). 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: 95%

“…The irrelevant speech effect refers to a reduction in the immediate serial recall of lists of presented items, usually digits or letters, when irrelevant auditory material is presented together with the items to be memorized Colle & Welsh, 1976;Jones, 1994;Jones & Macken, 1995a, 1995bJones, Madden, & Miles, 1992a, 1992bSalame & Baddeley, 1982, 1986. This effect occurs despite the fact that the irrelevant speech is independent of the serial recall task and despite the fact that subjects are explicitly instructed to ignore the speech (Jones, 1993).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The irrelevant speech effect: a PET study

et al. 2003

Self Cite

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

“…The phonological loop component of the model is in turn composed of a temporary phonological store whose contents decay with time unless refreshed via an articulatory control process. A number of key phenomena have been used to support the phonological loop concept, among them effects of phonological similarity (Conrad, 1964;Conrad & Hull, 1964;Wickelgren, 1965), word length (Baddeley, Thomson, & Buchanan, 1975), irrelevant sound (Colle & Welsh, 1976;Salame & Baddeley, 1982), and concurrent articulation (Baddeley, Lewis, & Vallar, 1984;Levy, 1971;Murray, 1968). On this view, while participants must engage in language production to complete the recall task, an independent storage mechanism is responsible for memory maintenance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Twisting tongues and memories: Explorations of the relationship between language production and verbal working memory

Acheson

MacDonald

2009

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many accounts of working memory posit specialized storage mechanisms for the maintenance of serial order. We explore an alternative, that maintenance is achieved through temporary activation in the language production architecture. Four experiments examined the extent to which the phonological similarity effect can be explained as a sublexical speech error. Phonologically similar nonword stimuli were ordered to create tongue twister or control materials used in four tasks: reading aloud, immediate spoken recall, immediate typed recall, and serial recognition. Dependent measures from working memory (recall accuracy) and language production (speech errors) fields were used. Even though lists were identical except for item order, robust effects of tongue twisters were observed. Speech error analyses showed that errors were better described as phoneme rather than item ordering errors. The distribution of speech errors was comparable across all experiments and exhibited syllable-position effects, suggesting an important role for production processes. Implications for working memory and language production are discussed.

show abstract

Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: Implications for the structure of working memory

Cited by 832 publications

References 29 publications

Repetition learning in the immediate serial recall of visual and auditory materials.

Repetition learning in the immediate serial recall of visual and auditory materials.

The irrelevant speech effect: a PET study

Twisting tongues and memories: Explorations of the relationship between language production and verbal working memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About