Literature DB >> 11082850

Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory.

I Neath1.   

Abstract

The feature model (Nairne, 1990) is extended to account for the effects of irrelevant speech and concomitant interactions in immediate serial recall. In the feature model, both articulatory suppression and irrelevant speech are seen as adding noise to the memory representation, the difference being that articulatory suppression diverts more resources than does irrelevant speech. The addition of noise impairs recall because it reduces the probability of successful redintegration. When a competitor is incorrectly recalled, rather than the correct item, this competitor is recalled out of order, producing an increase in order errors. Six simulations are reported that show that the model accounts for (1) the impairment by both irrelevant speech and articulatory suppression, (2) the irrelevance of the phonological and semantic composition of the irrelevant speech, (3) greater disruption when the irrelevant speech tokens vary, (4) the abolition of the phonological similarity effect for visual, but not for auditory, items, (5) the abolition of the word length effect for both visual and auditory items, and (6) the abolition of the irrelevant speech effect under articulatory suppression for both visual and auditory items. The feature model is compared with the two other major views of irrelevant speech, the phonological store hypothesis and the changing state hypothesis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11082850     DOI: 10.3758/bf03214356

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  44 in total

1.  In search of a strong visual recency effect.

Authors:  D C LeCompte
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1992-09

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

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

3.  The role of attention in visual and auditory suffix effects.

Authors:  G J Hitch
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1975-09

4.  The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory.

Authors:  F I Craik; R Govoni; M Naveh-Benjamin; N D Anderson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1996-06

5.  Irrelevant sound disrupts order information in free recall as in serial recall.

Authors:  C P Beaman; D M Jones
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  1998-08

6.  Is level irrelevant in "irrelevant speech"? Effects of loudness, signal-to-noise ratio, and binaural unmasking.

Authors:  W Ellermeier; J Hellbruck
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Recall of short word lists presented visually at fast rates: effects of phonological similarity and word length.

Authors:  V Coltheart; R Langdon
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1998-03

8.  Auditory and phonetic memory codes in the discrimination of consonants and vowels.

Authors:  David B Pisoni
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1973-06-01

9.  Organizational factors in the effect of irrelevant speech: the role of spatial location and timing.

Authors:  D M Jones; W J Macken
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1995-03

10.  Articulatory rehearsal and phonological storage in working memory.

Authors:  A M Longoni; J T Richardson; A Aiello
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1993-01
View more
  52 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

2.  The phonological loop and the irrelevant speech effect: some comments on Neath (2000).

Authors:  A D Baddeley
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2000-09

3.  The sandwich effect reassessed: effects of streaming, distraction, and modality.

Authors:  Alastair P Nicholls; Dylan M Jones
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2002-01

Review 4.  The case for sensorimotor coding in working memory.

Authors:  M Wilson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-03

5.  Elimination of the word length effect by irrelevant sound revisited.

Authors:  S Tremblay; W J Macken; D M Jones
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2000-07

6.  The irrelevant-speech effect and children: theoretical implications of developmental change.

Authors:  Emily M Elliott
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2002-04

7.  Irrelevant speech, articulatory suppression, and phonological similarity: a test of the phonological loop model and the feature model.

Authors:  J Richard Hanley; Eirini Bakopoulou
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-06

8.  Do irrelevant sounds impair the maintenance of all characteristics of speech in memory?

Authors:  D Gabriel; E Gaudrain; G Lebrun-Guillaud; F Sheppard; I M Tomescu; A Schnider
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2012-12

9.  Backward recall and benchmark effects of working memory.

Authors:  Tamra J Bireta; Sheena E Fry; Annie Jalbert; Ian Neath; Aimée M Surprenant; Gerald Tehan; Georgina Anne Tolan
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2010-04

10.  High working memory capacity attenuates the deviation effect but not the changing-state effect: further support for the duplex-mechanism account of auditory distraction.

Authors:  Patrik Sörqvist
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2010-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.