Specific foreknowledge reduces auditory distraction by irrelevant speech.

In a series of experiments, it was tested whether distraction by changing-state irrelevant speech is inevitable or can be modulated by foreknowledge of an imminent to-be-ignored distractor sequence. Participants were required to remember visually presented digits while ignoring background speech. In the foreknowledge condition of Experiment 1, the upcoming to-be-ignored sentence was presented auditorily and visually before each trial. With specific foreknowledge, the changing-state irrelevant sound effect (here, increased disruption by sentences compared with repeated words) was significantly attenuated relative to a condition without foreknowledge. This finding was replicated in Experiment 2, in which the information about the upcoming auditory distractor speech was presented only in the visual modality. Experiment 3 showed that only specific foreknowledge of the auditory distractor material has beneficial effects on the ability to ignore distraction. The mere notification that an unspecified distractor sentence would be presented next had no effect on distraction. In Experiment 4, there was only a small and not statistically significant reduction of the irrelevant speech effect when lists of randomly selected words were used as distractor material, suggesting that foreknowledge effects are more pronounced for highly variable, meaningful distractor material. We conclude that the disruption of short-term memory by irrelevant speech is not purely a stimulus-driven process that is immune to top-down control. A significant proportion of the effect can be modulated by specific knowledge about an imminent distractor sequence.

[1]  Dianne C. Berry,et al.  Habituation and dishabituation to speech and office noise , 1997 .

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

[3]  R. Hughes,et al.  Auditory distraction: A duplex-mechanism account. , 2014, PsyCh journal.

[4]  Nick Mosdell,et al.  The role of habituation in the disruption of recall performance by irrelevant sound , 1997 .

[5]  Axel Buchner,et al.  What Determines Auditory Distraction? On the Roles of Local Auditory Changes and Expectation Violations , 2014, PloS one.

[6]  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.

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

[8]  Axel Buchner,et al.  Predictability and distraction: Does the neural model represent postcategorical features? , 2014, PsyCh journal.

[9]  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.

[10]  E. N. Solokov.  Perception and the conditioned reflex , 1963 .

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

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

[13]  Bill Macken,et al.  Role of Habituation in the Irrelevant Sound Effect : Evidence From the Effects of Token Set Size and Rate of Transition , 2001 .

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

[15]  Axel Buchner,et al.  Habituation of the irrelevant sound effect: evidence for an attentional theory of short-term memory disruption. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[16]  Axel Buchner,et al.  Please silence your cell phone: Your ringtone captures other people's attention. , 2014, Noise & health.

[17]  Patrik Sörqvist,et al.  Working memory capacity modulates habituation rate: Evidence from a cross-modal auditory distraction paradigm , 2012, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

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

[20]  Axel Buchner,et al.  Irrelevant speech disrupts item-context binding. , 2013, Experimental psychology.

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

[22]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Habituation to irrelevant speech: Effects on a visual short-term memory task , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Memory as discrimination: What distraction reveals , 2013, Memory & cognition.

[24]  F. Barceló,et al.  Why are auditory novels distracting? Contrasting the roles of novelty, violation of expectation and stimulus change , 2011, Cognition.

[25]  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.

[26]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[27]  Hugo Fastl,et al.  Algorithmic modeling of the irrelevant sound effect (ISE) by the hearing sensation fluctuation strength , 2011, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

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

[29]  Axel Buchner,et al.  Evidence for habituation of the irrelevant-sound effect on serial recall , 2014, Memory & cognition.

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

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

[32]  I. Winkler,et al.  The concept of auditory stimulus representation in cognitive neuroscience. , 1999, Psychological bulletin.

[33]  Risto Näätänen,et al.  The N1 hypothesis and irrelevant sound: evidence from token set size effects. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[34]  D. C. Lecompte,et al.  An irrelevant speech effect with repeated and continuous background speech , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[35]  Dylan M. Jones.  Disruption of Memory for Lip-Read Lists by Irrelevant Speech: Further Support for the Changing State Hypothesis , 1994, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[36]  Jürgen Hellbrück,et al.  Does irrelevant music cause an irrelevant sound effect for auditory items? , 2008 .

[37]  Patrik Sörqvist,et al.  Expectations Modulate the Magnitude of Attentional Capture by Auditory Events , 2012, PloS one.

[38]  Learning and failing to learn within immediate memory , 2009 .

[39]  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.

[40]  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.

[41]  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.

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