Literature DB >> 24993544

Boundaries of semantic distraction: dominance and lexicality act at retrieval.

John E Marsh1, Nick Perham, Patrik Sörqvist, Dylan M Jones.   

Abstract

Three experiments investigated memory for semantic information with the goal of determining boundary conditions for the manifestation of semantic auditory distraction. Irrelevant speech disrupted the free recall of semantic category- exemplars to an equal degree regardless of whether the speech coincided with presentation or test phases of the task (Experiment 1), and this occurred regardless of whether it comprised random words or coherent sentences (Experiment 2). The effects of background speech were greater when the irrelevant speech was semantically related to the to-be-remembered material, but only when the irrelevant words were high in output dominance (Experiment 3). The implications of these findings in relation to the processing of task material and the processing of background speech are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24993544     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-014-0438-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  48 in total

1.  The irrelevant sound effect: does speech play a special role?

Authors:  S Tremblay; A P Nicholls; D Alford; D M Jones
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Disruption of comprehension by the meaning of irrelevant sound.

Authors:  C J Oswald; S Tremblay; D M Jones
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2000-09

3.  Inhibitory control in memory: evidence for negative priming in free recall.

Authors:  John E Marsh; C Philip Beaman; Robert W Hughes; Dylan M Jones
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2012-04-02       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Disruption of short-term memory by distractor speech: does content matter?

Authors:  Raoul Bell; Iris Mund; Axel Buchner
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 2.143

5.  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

6.  Interference by process, not content, determines semantic auditory distraction.

Authors:  John E Marsh; Robert W Hughes; Dylan M Jones
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2008-12-10

7.  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

8.  Auditory distraction eliminates retrieval induced forgetting: implications for the processing of unattended sound.

Authors:  John E Marsh; Patrik Sörqvist; C Philip Beaman; Dylan M Jones
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2013

9.  Syntax does not necessarily precede semantics in sentence processing: ERP evidence from Chinese.

Authors:  Yaxu Zhang; Ping Li; Qiuhong Piao; Youyi Liu; Yongjing Huang; Hua Shu
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 2.381

10.  Towards a cognitive model of distraction by auditory novelty: the role of involuntary attention capture and semantic processing.

Authors:  Fabrice B R Parmentier
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2008-11-12
View more
  3 in total

1.  Synergistic Effect Between Online Broadcast Media and Interactive Media on Purchase Intention.

Authors:  Yin Gao; Lin Zhao
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-12-23

2.  Failing to get the gist of what's being said: background noise impairs higher-order cognitive processing.

Authors:  John E Marsh; Robert Ljung; Anatole Nöstl; Emma Threadgold; Tom A Campbell
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-05-21

3.  Background Speech Effects on Sentence Processing during Reading: An Eye Movement Study.

Authors:  Jukka Hyönä; Miia Ekholm
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.