On interpretation of the effects of noise on cognitive performance: the fallacy of confusing the definition of an effect with the explanation of that effect

Summary and Conclusion The definition of an effect is the difference between two (ormore) conditions whilst an explanation is a theory about whythis difference arises. The definition and the explanation mustnot be confused, and the definition should never include theexplanation. When the explanation of an effect is embeddedinto the definition of the effect, the interpretation of the effectis circular and conceptually weak. Some degrees of circularitymay be acceptable, because the explanation may still be the mostprobable explanation, but not the circularity that is the result ofconfusing definition and explanation. The problems discussed inthis paper can easily be avoided by always keeping in mind thatthe definition of an effect and the explanation of that effect aretwo different things. References Baddeley, A. D. (1978). The trouble with levels: a reexamination of Craikand Lockhart’s framework for memory research. Psychol. Rev. 85,139–152.Basner, M., Brink, M., de Kluizenaar, Y., Hong, J., Janssen, S., and Sorqvist, P.(2015). ICBEN review of research on the biological effects on noise 2011-2014.Noise Health 17,57–82. doi: 10.4103/1463-1741.153373Bell, R., Roer, J. P., Dentale, S., and Buchner, A. (2012). Habituation of theirrelevant sound effect: evidence for an attentional theory of short-termmemory disruption. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 38, 1542–1557. doi:10.1037/a0028459Benoni, H., and Tsal, Y. (2013). Conceptual and methodological concerns in thetheory of perceptual load. Front. Psychol. 4:522.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00522Hahn, U., and Oaksford, M. (2007). The rationality of informal argumentation:a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychol. Rev. 114, 704–732. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.704Hughes, R. W. (2014). Auditory distraction: a duplex-mechanism account. PsyChJ. 3, 30–41. doi: 10.1002/pchj.44Jahncke, H., Hongisto, V., and Virjonen, P. (2013). Cognitive performance duringirrelevant speech: effects of speech intelligibility and office-task characteristics.Appl. Acoust. 74,307–316. doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2012.08.007Jones, D. M., Hughes, R. W., and Macken, W. J. (2007). The phonologicalstore abandoned. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 60, 505–511. doi: 10.1080/17470210601147598Jones, D. M., and Macken, W. J. (1993). Irrelevant tones produce an irrelevantspeecheffect:implicationsforphonologicalcodinginworkingmemory.J.Exp.Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 19,369–381.Macken, B. (2014). Auditory distraction and perceptual organization: streams ofunconscious processing. PsyCh J. 3, 4–16. doi: 10.1002/pchj.46Meinhardt-Injac, B., Schlittmeier, S., Klatte, M., Otto, A., Persike, M., andImhof, M. (2015). Auditory distraction by meaningless irrelevant speech: adevelopmental study. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 29,217–225. doi: 10.1002/acp.3098Sorqvist, P. (2014). On interpretation and task selection in studies on theeffects of noise on cognitive performance. Front. Psychol. 5:1249. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01249Sorqvist, P. (2015). On interpretation and task selection: the sub-componenthypothesis of cognitive noise effects. Front. Psychol. 5:1598. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01598