Literature DB >> 26523691

Age equivalence in auditory distraction by changing and deviant speech sounds.

Jan P Röer1, Raoul Bell1, John E Marsh2, Axel Buchner1.   

Abstract

The present study was designed to examine age-related differences in the disruption of short-term memory by changing and deviant speech sounds. In total, 128 old and 130 young adults performed a serial recall task while ignoring (a) steady-state sequences in which the same distractor word was repeated 12 times, (b) auditory deviant sequences in which the ninth distractor word deviated from the otherwise repetitive context, and (c) changing state sequences in which 12 different distractor words were presented. According to inhibitory deficit theory, older adults should generally be more susceptible to auditory distraction. The duplex-mechanism account of auditory distraction is based on the idea that the changing state effect and the auditory deviant effect are functionally different. It suggests that older adults should be more impaired by auditory deviants than younger adults but equally able to ignore changing state sequences. The age-invariant distractibility account predicts no age differences in auditory distraction, which was confirmed by the present results. Old adults performed worse than young adults in the serial recall task. In both age groups, however, the changing state effect (i.e., increased disruption by changing state sequences relative to steady-state sequences) and the auditory deviant effect (i.e., increased disruption by auditory deviant sequences relative to steady-state sequences) were equivalent. These effects were also unrelated to individual differences in working memory capacity. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26523691     DOI: 10.1037/pag0000055

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Aging        ISSN: 0882-7974


  7 in total

1.  Irrelevant speech impairs serial recall of verbal but not spatial items in children and adults.

Authors:  Larissa Leist; Thomas Lachmann; Sabine J Schlittmeier; Markus Georgi; Maria Klatte
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-10-03

2.  Effects of Auditory Distraction on Face Memory.

Authors:  Raoul Bell; Laura Mieth; Jan Philipp Röer; Axel Buchner
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-07-15       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Distraction by auditory novelty during reading: Evidence for disruption in saccade planning, but not saccade execution.

Authors:  Martin R Vasilev; Fabrice Br Parmentier; Julie A Kirkby
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 2.143

4.  Does working memory protect against auditory distraction in older adults?

Authors:  Yatin Mahajan; Jeesun Kim; Chris Davis
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 3.921

5.  Positive and negative mood states do not influence cross-modal auditory distraction in the serial-recall paradigm.

Authors:  Saskia Kaiser; Axel Buchner; Raoul Bell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-28       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Task-specific auditory distraction in serial recall and mental arithmetic.

Authors:  Florian Kattner; Sarah Hanl; Linda Paul; Wolfgang Ellermeier
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-10-14

7.  The metacognition of auditory distraction: Judgments about the effects of deviating and changing auditory distractors on cognitive performance.

Authors:  Raoul Bell; Laura Mieth; Jan Philipp Röer; Axel Buchner
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-07-13
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.