Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory

Neath, Ian

doi:10.3758/bf03214356

Cited by 237 publications

(428 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

393

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests that semantic distraction effects in semantic fluency are unlikely to be due to depletion of a generalpurpose executive resource (cf. Buchner & Erdfelder, 2005;Cowan, 1995;Elliott, 2002; see also Neath, 2000). Rather, the effects seem to arise because of the disruption of processes related to the semantic activation of candidate items.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval from memory: Vulnerable or inviolable?

Jones¹,

Marsh²,

Hughes³

2012

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We show that retrieval from semantic memory is vulnerable even to the mere presence of speech. Irrelevant speech impairs semantic fluency-namely lexical retrieval cued by a semantic category name-more than meaningless speech (reversed speech or nonwords). Moreover, speech related semantically to the retrieval category is more disruptive than unrelated speech. That phonemic fluency-in which participants are cued with the first letter of words they are to report-was not disrupted by the mere presence of speech, only by speech in a related phonemic category, suggests that distraction is not mediated by executive processing load. The pattern of sensitivity to different properties of sound as a function of the type of retrieval cue is in line with an interference-by-process approach to auditory distraction.Keywords: Auditory Distraction, Lexical Retrieval, Semantic Fluency, Phonemic Fluency Retrieval and Distraction 3 Lexical retrieval is a fundamental capacity of language that underpins oral and written language production, involving the access and selection of context-appropriate lexical items to express an intended meaning. One of the most frequently-used tests of lexical retrieval is semantic fluency, in which a semantic category cue is given (e.g., 'Animals') and the task is to retrieve from long-term semantic memory as many examples as possible from that category (Bousfield & Sedgewick, 1944;Newcombe, 1969). We ask whether this process of search by semantic criterion is vulnerable to the presence of concurrent to-be-ignored sound, given that there is a body of work suggesting that retrieval processes generally are largely inviolable to all but the most attentionally-demanding concurrent tasks (Craik, Govoni, Naveh-Benjamin, & N. D. Anderson, 1996). We also attempt to discover how the lexical and semantic status of the sound's contents determine the degree to which semantic fluency is impaired, with a view to revealing the level of abstraction at which distraction occurs. Phonemic fluency (e.g., Benton, 1968), in which the criterion for production is phonemic, not semantic, is also studied in order to provide baseline conditions that share some processes-including key executive processes-with semantic fluency, but not those related to semantic retrieval. This allows examination of whether semantic auditory distraction has a process-specific effect on semantic retrieval, namely whether it only occurs when the focal task also requires semantic (but not phonemic) retrieval, or whether common (executive) processes are vulnerable.Fluency tasks have not been used to study auditory distraction and the work reported here is the first of its kind. Their attraction as a research tool for students of distraction is that they are relatively process-pure in terms of retrieval. Evidence collected so far relating to disruption by sound of lexical-semantic processing has used, almost exclusively, list-based tasks, ones that are not to the same degree process-pure as the fluency task. Because they are list-based, perform...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieval from memory: Vulnerable or inviolable?

Jones¹,

Marsh²,

Hughes³

2012

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No evidence has been found that pinpoints the locus of individual differences in susceptibility unambiguously. This is disappointing because any factor influencing the extent to which an individual suffers from the irrelevant sound effect must, of necessity, be a mechanism governing the very existence of the effect, an issue that is still a matter of some controversy (Baddeley, 1986;Cowan, 1995;Jones et al, 1996;Neath, 2000). The current set of data can, however, be put alongside those of Ellermeier and Zimmer (1997) and Neath et al (2003) in ruling out one possible explanation of the effect.…”

Section: Implications For the Irrelevant Sound Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Findings from research into the effects of irrelevant sound have informed a number of contemporary models of memory function, including the working memory model of Baddeley (1986), the object-oriented episodic record model of Jones (1993), and the feature model of Neath and Nairne (Nairne, 1990;Neath & Nairne, 1995;Neath, 2000). All of these models have enjoyed some degree of support from research into the irrelevant sound effect, but despite the ongoing high level of research into the phenomenon, there are a number of questions yet to be answered.…”

mentioning

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

“…Jones (Jones, 1993;Jones & Tremblay, 2000) suggests the sound disrupts cues to serial order in multi-modal short-term memory system. Neath (Neath, 2000) gives an account in terms of the Nairne (Nairne, 1990) feature model, with the irrelevant sound disrupting the features that underpin recall. Baddeley interprets the effect in terms of the phonological loop component of working memory, while leaving the precise mechanism of disruption unspecified (Baddeley, 2000;Larsen & Baddeley, in press).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory

Cited by 237 publications

References 80 publications

Retrieval from memory: Vulnerable or inviolable?

Retrieval from memory: Vulnerable or inviolable?

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

The irrelevant speech effect: a PET study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About