Literature DB >> 23479339

High working memory capacity does not always attenuate distraction: Bayesian evidence in support of the null hypothesis.

Patrik Sörqvist1, John E Marsh, Anatole Nöstl.   

Abstract

Individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) predict individual differences in basically all tasks that demand some form of cognitive labor, especially if the persons conducting the task are exposed to distraction. As such, tasks that measure WMC are very useful tools in individual-differences research. However, the predictive power of those tasks, combined with conventional statistical tools that cannot support the null hypothesis, also makes it difficult to study the limits of that power. In this article, we review studies that have failed to find a relationship between WMC and effects of auditory distraction on visual-verbal cognitive performance, and use meta-analytic Bayesian statistics to test the null hypothesis. The results favor the assumption that individual differences in WMC are, in fact, not (always) related to the magnitude of distraction. Implications for the nature of WMC are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23479339      PMCID: PMC3825494          DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0419-y

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


  31 in total

1.  A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity.

Authors:  M J Kane; M K Bleckley; A R Conway; R W Engle
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2001-06

2.  Directly assessing the relationship between irrelevant speech and articulatory suppression.

Authors:  Ian Neath; Lisa A Farley; Aimée M Surprenant
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2003-11

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

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

4.  The generality of working memory capacity: a latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning.

Authors:  Michael J Kane; David Z Hambrick; Stephen W Tuholski; Oliver Wilhelm; Tabitha W Payne; Randall W Engle
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2004-06

5.  The irrelevant sound phenomenon revisited: what role for working memory capacity?

Authors:  C Philip Beaman
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Cognitive control of auditory distraction: impact of task difficulty, foreknowledge, and working memory capacity supports duplex-mechanism account.

Authors:  Robert W Hughes; Mark J Hurlstone; John E Marsh; François Vachon; Dylan M Jones
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-06-25       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Working memory and syllogistic reasoning.

Authors:  David Copeland; Gabriel Radvansky
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2004-11

8.  The impact of order incongruence between a task-irrelevant auditory sequence and a task-relevant visual sequence.

Authors:  Robert W Hughes; Dylan M Jones
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Auditory attentional capture during serial recall: violations at encoding of an algorithm-based neural model?

Authors:  Robert W Hughes; François Vachon; Dylan M Jones
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  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

View more
  10 in total

1.  Processing Complex Sounds Passing through the Rostral Brainstem: The New Early Filter Model.

Authors:  John E Marsh; Tom A Campbell
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 4.677

2.  Carving executive control at its joints: Working memory capacity predicts stimulus-stimulus, but not stimulus-response, conflict.

Authors:  Matt E Meier; Michael J Kane
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  Costs of switching auditory spatial attention in following conversational turn-taking.

Authors:  Gaven Lin; Simon Carlile
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2015-04-20       Impact factor: 4.677

Review 4.  Hemispheric specialization in selective attention and short-term memory: a fine-coarse model of left- and right-ear disadvantages.

Authors:  John E Marsh; Lea K Pilgrim; Patrik Sörqvist
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-12-24

5.  Individual differences in distractibility: An update and a model.

Authors:  Patrik Sörqvist; Jerker Rönnberg
Journal:  Psych J       Date:  2014-03-10

Review 6.  ICBEN review of research on the biological effects of noise 2011-2014.

Authors:  Mathias Basner; Mark Brink; Abigail Bristow; Yvonne de Kluizenaar; Lawrence Finegold; Jiyoung Hong; Sabine A Janssen; Ronny Klaeboe; Tony Leroux; Andreas Liebl; Toshihito Matsui; Dieter Schwela; Mariola Sliwinska-Kowalska; Patrik Sörqvist
Journal:  Noise Health       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 0.867

7.  Are individual differences in auditory processing related to auditory distraction by irrelevant sound? A replication study.

Authors:  Emily M Elliott; John E Marsh; Jenna Zeringue; Corey I McGill
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2020-01

Review 8.  Ten simple rules to study distractor suppression.

Authors:  Malte Wöstmann; Viola S Störmer; Jonas Obleser; Douglas A Addleman; Søren K Andersen; Nicholas Gaspelin; Joy J Geng; Steven J Luck; MaryAnn P Noonan; Heleen A Slagter; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Prog Neurobiol       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 10.885

9.  How Concentration Shields Against Distraction.

Authors:  Patrik Sörqvist; John E Marsh
Journal:  Curr Dir Psychol Sci       Date:  2015-08

10.  The Dynamics of Attention Shifts Among Concurrent Speech in a Naturalistic Multi-speaker Virtual Environment.

Authors:  Keren Shavit-Cohen; Elana Zion Golumbic
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2019-11-08       Impact factor: 3.169

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.