Literature DB >> 14578082

Disruption of verbal STM by irrelevant speech, articulatory suppression, and manual tapping: do they have a common source?

Janet D Larsen1, Alan Baddeley.   

Abstract

Under appropriate conditions, immediate serial verbal recall is impaired by irrelevant speech, articulatory suppression, and syncopated tapping. Interpretation of these variables in terms of the phonological loop component of working memory assumes separate phonological storage and articulatory rehearsal processes. In contrast, the Object-Oriented Episodic Record (O-OER) of Jones and the feature theory of Neath interpret these and other phenomena in terms of a unitary multimodal system. Three experiments investigate these disrupting tasks, with each experiment emphasizing one parameter. In each case, recall of phonologically similar and dissimilar letter sequences is compared as a marker of the presence or absence of phonological coding. In Experiment 1, subjects heard or articulated a single item, or tapped a single key at equal intervals. Only articulatory suppression impaired performance; it also abolished the effects of phonological similarity. Experiment 2 was identical, except that items were heard, or generated in a syncopated rhythm. Both suppression and tapping impaired performance to an equivalent extent and obliterated the effect of phonological similarity. Syncopated irrelevant speech caused a modest but significant impairment in performance. Experiment 3 was identical to Experiment 1, except that six tokens were used. Irrelevant speech and tapping had a clear impact on recall, but neither removed the phonological similarity effect. Again articulatory suppression had a major impact on performance and removed the effect of phonological similarity. We conclude that the pattern of results readily fits the phonological loop hypothesis, provided one accepts Saitos proposal that generating syncopated sequences uses common processes with speech production. It is not clear how the results can be explained by either the O-OER or the feature hypothesis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14578082     DOI: 10.1080/02724980244000765

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A        ISSN: 0272-4987


  25 in total

1.  Decomposing the role of rehearsal in auditory distraction during serial recall.

Authors:  Angela M AuBuchon; Corey I McGill; Emily M Elliott
Journal:  Audit Percept Cogn       Date:  2020-11-10

2.  Duration estimation and the phonological loop: articulatory suppression and irrelevant sounds.

Authors:  Vicky Franssen; André Vandierendonck; Alain Van Hiel
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2005-07-07

3.  Articulatory suppression and the irrelevant-speech effect in short-term memory: does the locus of suppression matter?

Authors:  Thomas C Toppino; Anthony Pisegna
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-04

4.  The role of working memory in spatial enumeration: patterns of selective interference in subitizing and counting.

Authors:  Lana M Trick
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-08

5.  Output order in immediate serial recall.

Authors:  Lydia Tan; Geoff Ward
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-07

6.  Examining the relationship between free recall and immediate serial recall: Similar patterns of rehearsal and similar effects of word length, presentation rate, and articulatory suppression.

Authors:  Parveen Bhatarah; Geoff Ward; Jessica Smith; Louise Hayes
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2009-07

7.  Forward and backward recall: Different visuospatial processes when you know what's coming.

Authors:  Dominic Guitard; Jean Saint-Aubin; Marie Poirier; Leonie M Miller; Anne Tolan
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2020-01

8.  Phonological similarity in working memory span tasks.

Authors:  Michael Chow; Brooke N Macnamara; Andrew R A Conway
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-08

Review 9.  Verbal working memory and language production: Common approaches to the serial ordering of verbal information.

Authors:  Daniel J Acheson; Maryellen C MacDonald
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 17.737

10.  Are there age differences in the executive component of working memory? Evidence from domain-general interference effects.

Authors:  Nathan S Rose; Joel Myerson; Mitchell S Sommers; Sandra Hale
Journal:  Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn       Date:  2009-04-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.