Literature DB >> 10983458

Elimination of the word length effect by irrelevant sound revisited.

S Tremblay1, W J Macken, D M Jones.   

Abstract

The word length effect refers to the tendency for lists of long words to be recalled less well than lists of short words. Theoretical and empirical objections are raised to a recent claim that irrelevant speech eliminates the word length effect (Neath, Suprenant, & LeCompte, 1998). A first experiment using a within-subjects design of adequate power (N = 65) fails to replicate their finding, showing instead that the word length effect is not differentially eliminated by speech as opposed to tones. In a second experiment, the effect of change (repeated vs. changing sounds) is shown to be additive to the effect of word length for both speech and nonspeech. Irrelevant speech and irrelevant tones have comparable effects on lists of short or lists of long words. These results are at variance with the feature model (e.g., Nairne, 1990).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10983458     DOI: 10.3758/bf03198419

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  10 in total

1.  Change of intensity fails to produce an irrelevant sound effect: implications for the representation of unattended sound.

Authors:  S Tremblay; D M Jones
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 2.  Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory.

Authors:  I Neath
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2000-09

3.  An irrelevant speech effect with repeated and continuous background speech.

Authors:  D C Lecompte
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1995-09

Review 4.  A feature model of immediate memory.

Authors:  J S Nairne
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1990-05

5.  Individual differences in susceptibility to the "irrelevant speech effect".

Authors:  W Ellermeier; K Zimmer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Irrelevant speech eliminates the word length effect.

Authors:  I Neath; A M Surprenant; D C LeCompte
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1998-03

7.  Output loss or rehearsal loop? Output-time versus pronunciation-time limits in immediate recall for forgetting-matched materials.

Authors:  B A Dosher; J J Ma
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Does articulatory suppression remove the irrelevant speech effect?

Authors:  J R Hanley
Journal:  Memory       Date:  1997-05

9.  Functional characteristics of the inner voice and the inner ear: single or double agency?

Authors:  W J Macken; D M Jones
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  Articulatory rehearsal and phonological storage in working memory.

Authors:  A M Longoni; J T Richardson; A Aiello
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1993-01
  10 in total
  4 in total

Review 1.  Interference in memory by process or content? A reply to Neath (2000)

Authors:  D M Jones; S Tremblay
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2000-09

Review 2.  A model linking immediate serial recall, the Hebb repetition effect and the learning of phonological word forms.

Authors:  M P A Page; D Norris
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-12-27       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Evaluating models of working memory through the effects of concurrent irrelevant information.

Authors:  Jason M Chein; Julie A Fiez
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2010-02

4.  Language and short-term memory: the role of perceptual-motor affordance.

Authors:  Bill Macken; John C Taylor; Dylan M Jones
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2014-05-05       Impact factor: 3.051

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.