Literature DB >> 20553792

Speech versus non-speech as irrelevant sound: controlling acoustic variation.

Jason S Little1, Frances Heritage Martin, Richard H S Thomson.   

Abstract

Functional differences between speech and non-speech within the irrelevant sound effect were investigated using repeated and changing formats of irrelevant sounds in the form of intelligible words and unintelligible signal correlated noise (SCN) versions of the words. Event-related potentials were recorded from 25 females aged between 18 and 25 while they completed a serial order recall task in the presence of irrelevant sound or silence. As expected and in line with the changing-state hypothesis both words and SCN produced robust changing-state effects. However, words produced a greater changing-state effect than SCN indicating that the spectral detail inherent within speech accounts for the greater irrelevant sound effect and changing-state effect typically observed with speech. ERP data in the form of N1 amplitude was modulated within some irrelevant sound conditions suggesting that attentional aspects are involved in the elicitation of the irrelevant sound effect. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20553792     DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.05.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Psychol        ISSN: 0301-0511            Impact factor:   3.251


  4 in total

1.  The impact of auditory distraction on retrieval of visual memories.

Authors:  Peter E Wais; Adam Gazzaley
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-12

2.  Acoustic Detail But Not Predictability of Task-Irrelevant Speech Disrupts Working Memory.

Authors:  Malte Wöstmann; Jonas Obleser
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 3.169

3.  Self-touch: Contact durations and point of touch of spontaneous facial self-touches differ depending on cognitive and emotional load.

Authors:  Stephanie Margarete Mueller; Sven Martin; Martin Grunwald
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-12       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Do not throw out the baby with the bath water: choosing an effective baseline for a functional localizer of speech processing.

Authors:  Nadav Stoppelman; Tamar Harpaz; Michal Ben-Shachar
Journal:  Brain Behav       Date:  2013-02-17       Impact factor: 2.708

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.