The phonological loop and the irrelevant speech effect: Some comments on Neath (2000)

Baddeley, Alan

doi:10.3758/bf03214369

Cited by 73 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are consistent with strong predictions derived from the phonological loop hypothesis of Baddeley's (1986Baddeley's ( , 2000b working memory model. Articulatory suppression during input should abolish the IS effect by preventing visual stimuli from being recoded and entered into the phonological store where they can suffer interference from IS.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Suppression was 2 sec (25%) longer during rehearsal than during input, potentially compensating somewhat for the less disruptive effect of suppression during rehearsal. Finally, the observed asymmetry is consistent with the working-memory and O-OER models (e.g., Baddeley, 2000b;Macken & Jones, 1995) as will be discussed below, but it is unclear whether asymmetry would be expected according to the feature model (e.g., Neath, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

“…According to Baddeley (1986Baddeley ( , 2000b, working memory involves a central executive and several subsidiary systems. The IS and suppression effects are explained in terms of the phonological loop subsystem, which consists of a phonological short-term store and an articulatory rehearsal loop.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

“…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

“…This disruption is typically referred to as the irrelevant-speech effect (Colle & Welsh, 1976;Salamé & Baddeley, 1982) but also the irrelevant-sound effect (ISE; Jones & Macken, 1993), given that it can occur with nonspeech sounds. Investigators have noted theoretical implications of this task for understanding memory, attention, and perception (for a recent review, see Neath, 2000, and commentaries by Baddeley, 2000, andJones &Tremblay, 2000). Fundamentally, the ISE reflects an important limitation in humans' ability to determine which stimuli will enter into the mnemonic processing needed for short-term recall.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coherence of the irrelevant-sound effect: Individual profiles of short-term memory and susceptibility to task-irrelevant materials

Elliott

Cowan

2005

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined individual and developmental differences in the disruptive effects of irrelevant sounds on serial recall of printed lists. In Experiment 1, we examined adults (N ϭ 205) receiving eight-item lists to be recalled. Although their susceptibility to disruption of recall by irrelevant sounds was only slightly related to memory span, regression analyses documented highly reliable individual differences in this susceptibility across speech and tone distractors, even with variance from span level removed. In Experiment 2, we examined adults (n ϭ 64) and 8-year-old children (n ϭ 63) receiving lists of a length equal to a predetermined span and one item shorter (span Ϫ 1). We again found significant relationships between measures of span and susceptibility to irrelevant sounds, although in only two of the measures. We conclude that some of the cognitive processes helpful in performing a span task may not be beneficial in the presence of irrelevant sounds.

show abstract

The phonological loop and the irrelevant speech effect: Some comments on Neath (2000)

Abstract: Neath (2000)

Cited by 73 publications

References 48 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

Coherence of the irrelevant-sound effect: Individual profiles of short-term memory and susceptibility to task-irrelevant materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About