Word frequency of irrelevant speech distractors affects serial recall

In this study, participants memorized frequent or rare target words in silence or while ignoring frequent or rare distractor words. Distractor words impaired recall performance, but low-frequency distractor words caused more impairment than did high-frequency distractor words. We demonstrate how to solve the identifiability problem for Schweickert’s (1993) multinomial processing tree model of immediate recall, and then use this model to show that irrelevant speech affected both the probability with which intact target word representations were available for serial recall and the probability of successful reconstruction of item identities based on degraded short-term memory traces. However, the type of irrelevant speech—low- versus high-frequency words—fselectively affected the probability of intact target word representations. These results are consistent with an explanation of the irrelevant speech effect within the framework proposed by Cowan (1995), and they pose problems for other explanations of the irrelevant speech effect. The analyses also confirm the validity of Schweickert’s process model.

[1]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  GPOWER: A general power analysis program , 1996 .

[2]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Irrelevant tones produce an irrelevant speech effect : Implications for phonological coding in working memory , 1993 .

[3]  Deborah M. Shaibe,et al.  On the Irrelevance of Phonological Similarity to the Irrelevant Speech Effect , 1997, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[4]  David M. Riefer,et al.  Multinomial Modeling and the Measurement of Cognitive Processes , 2001 .

[5]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior , 1959 .

[6]  Georg Rasch,et al.  Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests , 1981, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[7]  N. Cowan.  Attention and Memory: An Integrated Framework , 1995 .

[8]  Alan B. Welsh,et al.  Acoustic masking in primary memory. , 1976 .

[9]  F. Roberts.  Measurement Theory with Applications to Decisionmaking, Utility, and the Social Sciences: Measurement Theory , 1984 .

[10]  I. Neath.  Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[11]  C. P. Beaman,et al.  The object-oriented episodic record model , 1996 .

[12]  Axel Buchner,et al.  Valence of distractor words increases the effects of irrelevant speech on serial recall , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[13]  G D Brown,et al.  Word-frequency effects on short-term memory tasks: evidence for a redintegration process in immediate serial recall. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  D. C. Lecompte,et al.  The importance of semantic similarity to the irrelevant speech effect , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[15]  N. Cowan.  An embedded-processes model of working memory , 1999 .

[16]  F. Pratto.  Consciousness and Automatic Evaluation , 1994 .

[17]  J. S. Nairne.  A feature model of immediate memory , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[18]  Shengbao Chen,et al.  Redintegration and the Useful Lifetime of the Verbal Memory Representation , 1999 .

[19]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  Effects of Background Music on Phonological Short-Term Memory , 1989 .

[20]  A. Miyake,et al.  Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control , 1999 .

[21]  Susan E. Gathercole,et al.  Models Of Short-Term Memory , 1996 .

[22]  D. Wentura,et al.  The “meddling-in” of affective information: A general model of automatic evaluation effects , 2003 .

[23]  O. John,et al.  Automatic vigilance: the attention-grabbing power of negative social information. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[24]  R. Schweickert.  A multinomial processing tree model for degradation and redintegration in immediate recall , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[25]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Objects, streams, and threads of auditory attention. , 1993 .

[26]  E. Elliott,et al.  The irrelevant-speech effect and children: theoretical implications of developmental change , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[27]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[28]  D. Wentura,et al.  Automatic vigilance: the attention-grabbing power of approach- and avoidance-related social information. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  A D Baddeley,et al.  The phonological loop and the irrelevant speech effect: Some comments on Neath (2000) , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[30]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  On the Irrelevance of Semantic Information for the “Irrelevant Speech” Effect , 1996 .

[31]  W. Batchelder,et al.  The statistical analysis of general processing tree models with the EM algorithm , 1994 .

[32]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Working Memory: The multiple-component model , 1999 .

[33]  W H Batchelder,et al.  A measurement-theoretic analysis of the fuzzy logic model of perception. , 1995, Psychological review.

[34]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech : Implications for the structure of working memory , 1982 .

[35]  R Rothkegel,et al.  Appletree: A multinomial processing tree modeling program for macintosh computers , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[36]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Interference in memory by process or content? A reply to Neath (2000) , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[37]  David M. Riefer,et al.  Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[38]  Bamber,et al.  How to Assess a Model's Testability and Identifiability. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[39]  J. V. Santen,et al.  How many parameters can a model have and still be testable , 1985 .