Disruption of short-term memory by distractor speech: Does content matter?

Four experiments replicate the finding that auditory distractors that are lexically identical to the visual target items dramatically increase the irrelevant-speech effect on serial recall. This effect was previously attributed to interference of incompatible order cues. The present results suggest that a different interpretation of this effect is required. Experiment 2 replicates the order congruence effect observed by Hughes and Jones (2005), but shows that this effect is most likely due to an attenuation of interference that is caused by strategic attention shifts to the nominally irrelevant material. Experiments 3 and 4 show that the between-stream similarity effect generalizes to a condition in which the distractor items were drawn from the same category as the targets, but were not identical to them. By showing that nonacoustic distractor features can increase interference in serial recall of lists of supposedly “meaningless” items such as digits or consonants, the results are most consistent with models that postulate an integration of short-term and long-term memory such as the embedded-processes model and the feature model and are inconsistent with classical structural accounts of memory.

[1]  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.

[2]  C. Philip Beaman,et al.  Auditory distraction from low‐intensity noise: a review of the consequences for learning and workplace environments , 2005 .

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

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

[5]  M. Poirier,et al.  Semantic Similarity and Immediate Serial Recall: Is There a Detrimental Effect on Order Information? , 1999, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[6]  N. Cowan The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[7]  A Baddeley,et al.  Phonological similarity and the irrelevant speech effect: Implications for models of short-term verbal memory , 2000, Memory.

[8]  R. Marsh,et al.  Memory for intention-related material presented in a to-be-ignored channel , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[9]  M. Poirier,et al.  Memory for Related and Unrelated Words: Further Evidence on the Influence of Semantic Factors in Immediate Serial Recall , 1995, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

[11]  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.

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

[13]  A. Buchner,et al.  Equivalent irrelevant-sound effects for old and young adults , 2007, Memory & cognition.

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

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

[16]  I Neath,et al.  Word-length effects in immediate memory: Overwriting trace decay theory , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[17]  Axel Buchner,et al.  Sound source location modulates the irrelevant-sound effect , 2008, Memory & cognition.

[18]  I. Neath Modelling the Disruptive Effects of Irrelevant Speech on Order Information , 1999 .

[19]  E. Erdfelder,et al.  Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[20]  Gerald Tehan,et al.  Testing feature interaction: Between-stream irrelevant speech effects in immediate recall , 2002 .

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

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

[23]  Axel Buchner,et al.  Valence of distractor words increases the effects of irrelevant speech on serial recall , 2004, Memory & 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]  J. S. Nairne A feature model of immediate memory , 1990, Memory & cognition.

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

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

[28]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  Word frequency of irrelevant speech distractors affects serial recall , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[29]  M. D’Esposito Working memory. , 2008, Handbook of clinical neurology.

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

[31]  Jean Saint-Aubin,et al.  Semantic similarity and immediate serial recall: Is there an effect on all trials , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[32]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Attention : selection, awareness, and control : a tribute to Donald Broadbent , 1996 .