Auditory distraction: A duplex-mechanism account.

A body of laboratory work is reviewed suggesting that auditory distraction comes in two functionally distinct forms. Interference-by-process is produced when the involuntary processing of the sound competes with a similar process applied deliberately to perform a focal task. In contrast, attentional capture is produced when the sound causes a disengagement of attention away from the prevailing task, regardless of the task processes involved. Particular attention is devoted to reviewing a range of converging evidence from both experimental and individual- and group-differences-based research, indicating that auditory attentional capture is controllable via greater top-down task engagement whereas interference-by-process is not.

[1]  C. Frith,et al.  The Role of Working Memory in Visual Selective Attention , 2001, Science.

[2]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Privileged Access by Irrelevant Speech to Short-term Memory: The Role of Changing State , 1992, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[3]  R. Engle.  Working Memory and Retrieval: An Inhibition-Resource Approach , 1996 .

[4]  R. Engle,et al.  Is working memory capacity task dependent , 1989 .

[5]  Peng Yuan,et al.  The effect of visuospatial attentional load on the processing of irrelevant acoustic distractors , 2006, NeuroImage.

[6]  Ian Neath,et al.  Directly Assessing the Relationship between Irrelevant Speech and Articulatory Suppression , 2003, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[7]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  The phonological store of working memory: is it phonological and is it a store? , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  Patrik Sörqvist,et al.  High working memory capacity does not always attenuate distraction: Bayesian evidence in support of the null hypothesis , 2013, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[9]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  What causes auditory distraction? , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[10]  Hanna Benoni,et al.  Conceptual and methodological concerns in the theory of perceptual load , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[11]  R. Knight,et al.  Neural Mechanisms of Involuntary Attention to Acoustic Novelty and Change , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[12]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Cognitive control of auditory distraction: impact of task difficulty, foreknowledge, and working memory capacity supports duplex-mechanism account. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Organizational factors in the effect of irrelevant speech: The role of spatial location and timing , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[14]  C Philip Beaman,et al.  The irrelevant sound phenomenon revisited: what role for working memory capacity? , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  T Fernández,et al.  Primary task demands modulate P3a amplitude. , 2000, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

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

[17]  N. Moray.  Attention in Dichotic Listening: Affective Cues and the Influence of Instructions , 1959 .

[18]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Phonological similarity in the irrelevant speech effect: Within- or between-stream similarity? , 1995 .

[19]  J. Hanley,et al.  Does articulatory suppression remove the irrelevant speech effect? , 1997, Memory.

[20]  Thomas S. Redick,et al.  Working memory capacity and go/no-go task performance: selective effects of updating, maintenance, and inhibition. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  Erich Schröger,et al.  Working memory controls involuntary attention switching: evidence from an auditory distraction paradigm , 2003, The European journal of neuroscience.

[22]  Andrew R. A. Conway,et al.  A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[23]  C. Escera,et al.  The cognitive locus of distraction by acoustic novelty in the cross-modal oddball task , 2008, Cognition.

[24]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  The impact of order incongruence between a task-irrelevant auditory sequence and a task-relevant visual sequence. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Explaining the irrelevant-sound effect: Temporal distinctiveness or changing state? , 1999 .

[26]  Patrik Sörqvist,et al.  High working memory capacity attenuates the deviation effect but not the changing-state effect: Further support for the duplex-mechanism account of auditory distraction , 2010, Memory & cognition.

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

[28]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Retrieval from memory: vulnerable or inviolable? , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[29]  D. Ravenzwaaij,et al.  Individual differences in conflict-monitoring: testing means and covariance hypothesis about the Simon and the Eriksen Flanker task , 2009, Psychological research.

[30]  E. Elliott,et al.  Investigating the role of attentional resources in the irrelevant speech effect. , 2012, Acta psychologica.

[31]  I. Winkler,et al.  Preventing distraction: Assessing stimulus-specific and general effects of the predictive cueing of deviant auditory events , 2011, Biological Psychology.

[32]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[33]  A. Muller-Gass,et al.  The effect of visual task difficulty and attentional direction on the detection of acoustic change as indexed by the Mismatch Negativity , 2006, Brain Research.

[34]  A. Buchner,et al.  The role of habituation and attentional orienting in the disruption of short-term memory performance , 2011, Memory & cognition.

[35]  E. Schröger,et al.  Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of task-irrelevant sound change: a new distraction paradigm. , 1998, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[36]  J. Driver,et al.  Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII , 2000 .

[37]  Jonathan T. Mall,et al.  Goal-neglect links Stroop interference with working memory capacity. , 2012, Acta psychologica.

[38]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Auditory Distraction in Semantic Memory: A Process-Based Approach. , 2008 .

[39]  Thomas Lachmann,et al.  The irrelevant sound effect in short-term memory: Is there developmental change? , 2010 .

[40]  R. Engle.  Working Memory Capacity as Executive Attention , 2002 .

[41]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Organizational factors in selective attention: The interplay of acoustic distinctiveness and auditory streaming in the irrelevant sound effect , 1999 .

[42]  The effects of irrelevant speech and articulatory suppression on the serial recall of silently presented lipread digits. , 2001, British journal of psychology.

[43]  A. Buchner,et al.  Self-relevance increases the irrelevant sound effect: Attentional disruption by one's own name , 2013 .

[44]  R. Engle,et al.  Executive Attention, Working Memory Capacity, and a Two-Factor Theory of Cognitive Control. , 2003 .

[45]  O. Neumann.  Beyond capacity: A functional view of attention , 1987 .

[46]  Mattias Holmgren,et al.  Effects of speech on proofreading: can task-engagement manipulations shield against distraction? , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[47]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Inhibitory control in memory: evidence for negative priming in free recall. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[48]  Nelson Cowan,et al.  Coherence of the irrelevant-sound effect: Individual profiles of short-term memory and susceptibility to task-irrelevant materials , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[49]  Ian Neath,et al.  Irrelevant speech effects and sequence learning , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[50]  Elke B. Lange.  Disruption of attention by irrelevant stimuli in serial recall , 2005 .

[51]  Colin M. Macleod.  Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[52]  N. Lavie.  Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[54]  Carles Escera,et al.  When Loading Working Memory Reduces Distraction: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Evidence from an Auditory-Visual Distraction Paradigm , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[55]  F. Parmentier.  Towards a cognitive model of distraction by auditory novelty: The role of involuntary attention capture and semantic processing , 2008, Cognition.

[56]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Disruption by speech of serial short-term memory: The role of changing-state vowels , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[57]  Axel Buchner,et al.  Age-related differences in irrelevant-speech effects. , 2008, Psychology and aging.

[58]  R. Näätänen.  The role of attention in auditory information processing as revealed by event-related potentials and other brain measures of cognitive function , 1990, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[59]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Auditory attentional capture during serial recall: violations at encoding of an algorithm-based neural model? , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[60]  Nilli Lavie,et al.  Contrasting effects of sensory limits and capacity limits in visual selective attention , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[61]  D. Linden,et al.  Attention capture by novel sounds: Distraction versus facilitation , 2010 .

[62]  Michael F. Bunting,et al.  The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[63]  I. Winkler,et al.  Top-down control over involuntary attention switching in the auditory modality , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[64]  Y. Tsal,et al.  Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[66]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Disruption of short-term memory by changing and deviant sounds: support for a duplex-mechanism account of auditory distraction. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[67]  Bill Macken.  Auditory distraction and perceptual organization: Streams of unconscious processing. , 2014, PsyCh journal.

[68]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Interference by process, not content, determines semantic auditory distraction , 2009, Cognition.

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

[70]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Short-term memory does not involve the "working memory" of information processing: The demise of a common assumption , 1983 .

[71]  I. Winkler,et al.  The role of attention in the formation of auditory streams , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[72]  E. Viding,et al.  Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[73]  N. Cowan,et al.  The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: how frequent are attention shifts to one's name in an irrelevant auditory channel? , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[75]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning , Memory , and Cognition Broken Expectations : Violation of Expectancies , Not Novelty , Captures Auditory Attention , 2011 .

[76]  E. Elliott,et al.  The Distracting Effects of a Ringing Cell Phone: An Investigation of the Laboratory and the Classroom Setting. , 2009, Journal of environmental psychology.

[77]  HERMAN BUSCHKE,et al.  Relative Retention in Immediate Memory determined by the Missing Scan Method , 1963, Nature.

[78]  N. Lavie.  Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[79]  Rebecca A. Grier,et al.  Fundamental dimensions of subjective state in performance settings: task engagement, distress, and worry. , 2002, Emotion.

[80]  B. Murdock.  Serial order effects in short-term memory. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[81]  Albert S. Bregman,et al.  The Auditory Scene. (Book Reviews: Auditory Scene Analysis. The Perceptual Organization of Sound.) , 1990 .

[82]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[83]  Andrew R. A. Conway,et al.  On the capacity of attention: Its estimation and its role in working memory and cognitive aptitudes , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.

[84]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Role of Serial Order in the Irrelevant Speech Effect: Tests of the Changing-State Hypothesis , 1997 .

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

[86]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Cross-modal distraction by background speech: what role for meaning? , 2010, Noise & health.

[87]  W. Ellermeier,et al.  Individual differences in susceptibility to the "irrelevant speech effect". , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[88]  R. Engle,et al.  Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[89]  Gene A. Brewer,et al.  The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Variation in Working Memory Capacity and Cognitive Control: Goal Maintenance and Microadjustments of Control , 2022 .

[90]  Michael D. Dodd,et al.  In Opposition to Inhibition , 2003 .