Phonological similarity in the irrelevant speech effect: Within- or between-stream similarity?

Abstract

Irrelevant background speech disrupts serial recall of visually presented lists of verbal material. In 4 experiments, the hypothesis that this disruption is due to the phonological similarity of the irrelevant sound and the list to be recalled was tested. In Experiment 1, item length was controlled and a large irrelevant speech effect was found, but the effect of phonological similarity was small and confined to recency. In Experiment 2, words in the irrelevant stream were used, and the experiment showed an irrelevant speech effect in which phonological similarity played a small part. Experiments 3 and 4 found that similarity (rhyming) within the irrelevant sound stream decreased the level of disruption, and the effect was more marked when the visually presented lists contained items that did not rhyme with one another. Rather than supporting a phonological similarity hypothesis, the results support a changing state hypothesis.

The irrelevant speech effect: a PET study

“…The literature on irrelevant speech effects between single items and quiet conditions are somewhat mixed. Effects have been demonstrated with a repeated sound and even with a similar continuous sound compared to quiet in some experiments (Jones et al, 1992a(Jones et al, , 1992bLeCompte, 1995) while in others no reliable effect have been observed (Jones, 1994;Jones & Macken, 1995a,1995b.…”

“…It is clearly not due to simple masking effects as irrelevant items that are similar in sound to the remembered material cause no more disruption than dissimilar irrelevant sounds (Jones & Macken, 1995a, 1995bLarsen, Baddeley, & Andrade, 2000;LeCompte & Shaibe, 1997;Surprenant, Neath, & LeCompte, 1999). There is also a broad agreement with the view that disruption occurs principally when the irrelevant sound fluctuates, termed the 'changing-state hypothesis' by Jones (Jones, 1993;Jones et al, 1992aJones et al, , 1992bJones & Tremblay, 2000).…”

“…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).…”

The irrelevant sound effect in short-term memory: Is there developmental change?

“…Originally, it was assumed that irrelevant sounds partially mask memory traces within the phonological store (Salamé & Baddeley, 1982, 1989. This view was later abandoned, as it is not in line with major characteristics of the ISE, such as its evocation by nonspeech sounds (Elliott, 2002;Jones & Macken, 1993), the impact of the sounds' changing state, and the finding that the ISE with speech is unaffected by the phonological similarity between the irrelevant speech and the memory items (Jones & Macken, 1995;Larsen, Baddeley, & Andrade, 2000). A more recent version of the phonological loop interpretation assumes that irrelevant sounds draw on domain-specific resources which build up a representation of the order in the to-be-remembered list (Page & Norris, 2003).…”

A model linking immediate serial recall, the Hebb repetition effect and the learning of phonological word forms

“…The data provide solid evidence that a number of factors affect ISR performance, including the phonological similarity of list items (Conrad & Hull 1964;Baddeley 1968;Henson et al 1996;Farrell & Lewandowsky 2003;Page et al 2007 etc. ) and irrelevant sound during list presentation (Colle & Welsh 1976;Salamé & Baddeley 1982, 1986Jones & Macken 1995;Tremblay et al 2000 etc.). The detailed pattern of data underlying these and other effects has constituted a rich dataset on which to test competing models.…”