Literature DB >> 22411591

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

D Gabriel1, E Gaudrain, G Lebrun-Guillaud, F Sheppard, I M Tomescu, A Schnider.   

Abstract

Several studies have shown that maintaining in memory some attributes of speech, such as the content or pitch of an interlocutor's message, is markedly reduced in the presence of background sounds made of spectrotemporal variations. However, experimental paradigms showing this interference have only focused on one attribute of speech at a time, and thus differ from real-life situations in which several attributes have to be memorized and maintained simultaneously. It is possible that the interference is even greater in such a case and can occur for a broader range of background sounds. We developed a paradigm in which participants had to maintain the content, pitch and speaker size of auditorily presented speech information and used various auditory distractors to generate interference. We found that only distractors with spectrotemporal variations impaired the detection, which shows that similar interference mechanisms occur whether there are one or more speech attributes to maintain in memory. A high percentage of false alarms was observed with these distractors, suggesting that spectrotemporal variations not only weaken but also modify the information maintained in memory. Lastly, we found that participants were unaware of the interference. These results are similar to those observed in the visual modality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22411591     DOI: 10.1007/s10936-012-9204-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res        ISSN: 0090-6905


  20 in total

1.  The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2000-11-01       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 2.  The irrelevant sound effect: what needs modelling, and a tentative model.

Authors:  M P A Page; D G Norris
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2003-11

3.  Auditory change detection: simple sounds are not memorized better than complex sounds.

Authors:  Laurent Demany; Wiebke Trost; Maja Serman; Catherine Semal
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2008-01

4.  The primacy model: a new model of immediate serial recall.

Authors:  M P Page; D Norris
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  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

6.  Speech versus nonspeech in pitch memory.

Authors:  C Semal; L Demany; K Ueda; P A Hallé
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Mechanisms of auditory backward masking in the stimulus suffix effect.

Authors:  R G Crowder
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1978-11       Impact factor: 8.934

8.  Mapping of interactions in the pitch memory store.

Authors:  D Deutsch
Journal:  Science       Date:  1972-03-03       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Exploring the informational sources of metaperception: the case of Change Blindness Blindness.

Authors:  Anna Loussouarn; Damien Gabriel; Joëlle Proust
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2011-07-30

10.  Electrophysiological evidence for automatic phonetic processing in neonates.

Authors:  G Dehaene-Lambertz; M Pena
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2001-10-08       Impact factor: 1.837

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.