Noise, unattended speech and short-term memory

Salamé, Pierre; Baddeley, Alan

doi:10.1080/00140138708966007

Cited by 138 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, under conditions of suppression, the presence or absence of IS did not influence immediate recall. This finding was replicated in several other studies (Hanley, 1997;Miles, Jones, & Madden, 1991;Salamé & Baddeley, 1987). However, Macken and Jones (1995, Experiment 5) found that the IS effect was not attenuated by steady-state suppression and was not eliminated even by changing-state suppression (see also Norris, Baddeley, & Page, 2004).…”

supporting

confidence: 65%

Articulatory suppression and the irrelevantspeech effect in short-term memory: Does the locus of suppression matter?

Toppino

Pisegna

2005

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 65%

Articulatory suppression and the irrelevantspeech effect in short-term memory: Does the locus of suppression matter?

Toppino

Pisegna

2005

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…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

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

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The impetus for positing specific mechanisms to handle phonological coding of words stems from a number of robust findings in the STM literature. These include the phonological similarity effect (e.g., Baddeley, 1966;Conrad, 1964), the word length effect (Baddeley, Thomson, & Buchanan, 1975), the unattended speech effect (Salamé & Baddeley, 1982, 1987, and the articulatory suppression effect (Baddeley, Lewis, &Vallar, 1984).The Interpretations given to these diverse findings on immediate memory span have not gone unchallenged (see, e.g., Caplan, Rochon, & Waters, 1992;Caplan & Waters, 1994; © 2003 The Experimental Psychology Society Requests for reprints should be sent to Winston D. Goh, National University of Singapore, Department of Social, Work & Psychology, 11 Law Link, Singapore 117570, Singapore. winston_goh@nus.edu.sg.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Lexical Competition on Immediate Memory Span for Spoken Words

Goh

Pisoni²

2003

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current theories and models of the structural organization of verbal short-term memory are primarily based on evidence obtained from manipulations of features inherent m the short-term traces of the presented stimuli, such as phonological similarity. In the present study, we investigated whether properties of the stimuli that are not inherent in the short-term traces of spoken words would affect performance in an immediate memory span task. We studied the lexical neighbourhood properties of the stimulus items, which are based on the structure and organization of words in the mental lexicon. The experiments manipulated lexical competition by varying the phonological neighbourhood structure (i.e., neighbourhood density and neighbourhood frequency) of the words on a test list while controlling for word frequency and intra-set phonological similarity (family size). Immediate memory span for spoken words was measured under repeated and nonrepeated sampling procedures. The results demonstrated that lexical competition only emerged when a nonrepeated sampling procedure was used and the participants had to access new words from their lexicons. These findings were not dependent on individual differences in short-term memory capacity. Additional results showed that the lexical competition effects did not interact with proactive interference. Analyses of error patterns indicated that itemtype errors, but not positional errors, were influenced by the lexical attributes of the stimulus items. These results complement and extend previous findings that have argued for separate contributions of long-term knowledge and short-term memory rehearsal processes in immediate verbal serial recall tasks.One of the major assumptions of current verbal short-term memory (STM) models is the proposal that words are coded and represented in a phonological form in immediate memory. For example, in Baddeley and Hitch's (1974) well-known "working" memory model, they propose a specific mechanism called the "phonological (or articulatory) loop" to support the retention of verbal lists on a temporary basis. The impetus for positing specific mechanisms to handle phonological coding of words stems from a number of robust findings in the STM literature. These include the phonological similarity effect (e.g., Baddeley, 1966;Conrad, 1964), the word length effect (Baddeley, Thomson, & Buchanan, 1975), the unattended speech effect (Salamé & Baddeley, 1982, 1987, and the articulatory suppression effect (Baddeley, Lewis, &Vallar, 1984).The Interpretations given to these diverse findings on immediate memory span have not gone unchallenged (see, e.g., Caplan, Rochon, & Waters, 1992;Caplan & Waters, 1994; © 2003 The Experimental Psychology Society Requests for reprints should be sent to Winston D. Goh, National University of Singapore, Department of Social, Work & Psychology, 11 Law Link, Singapore 117570, Singapore. winston_goh@nus.edu.sg. NIH Public AccessAuthor Manuscript Q J Exp Psychol A. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 04. ...

show abstract

Noise, unattended speech and short-term memory

Cited by 138 publications

References 15 publications

Articulatory suppression and the irrelevantspeech effect in short-term memory: Does the locus of suppression matter?

Articulatory suppression and the irrelevantspeech effect in short-term memory: Does the locus of suppression matter?

The irrelevant speech effect: a PET study

Effects of Lexical Competition on Immediate Memory Span for Spoken Words

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About