Literature DB >> 34240010

Recall of Speech is Impaired by Subsequent Masking Noise: A Replication of Experiment 2.

Claire Guang1, Emmett Lefkowitz1, Naseem Dillman-Hasso1, Violet A Brown2, Julia F Strand1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The presence of masking noise can impair speech intelligibility and increase the attentional and cognitive resources necessary to understand speech. The first study to demonstrate the negative cognitive effects of noisy speech found that participants had poorer recall for aurally-presented digits early in a list when later digits were presented in noise relative to quiet (Rabbitt, 1968). However, despite being cited nearly 500 times and providing the foundation for a wealth of subsequent research on the topic, the original study has never been directly replicated.
METHODS: This study replicated Rabbitt (1968) with a large online sample and tested its robustness to a variety of analytical and scoring techniques.
RESULTS: We replicated Rabbitt's key finding that listening to speech in noise impairs recall for items that came earlier in the list. The results were consistent when we used the original analytical technique (an ANOVA) and a more powerful analytical technique (generalized linear mixed effects models) that was not available when the original paper was published. DISCUSSION: These findings support the claim that effortful listening can interfere with encoding or rehearsal of previously presented information.

Entities:  

Keywords:  listening effort; recall; replication; spoken word recognition

Year:  2021        PMID: 34240010      PMCID: PMC8262135          DOI: 10.1080/25742442.2021.1896908

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Audit Percept Cogn        ISSN: 2574-2442


  14 in total

1.  Effects of degraded sensory input on memory for speech: behavioral data and a test of biologically constrained computational models.

Authors:  Tepring Piquado; Katheryn A Q Cousins; Arthur Wingfield; Paul Miller
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2010-09-25       Impact factor: 3.252

2.  Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction.

Authors:  Anastasios Sarampalis; Sridhar Kalluri; Brent Edwards; Ervin Hafter
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2009-04-20       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Hearing loss and perceptual effort: downstream effects on older adults' memory for speech.

Authors:  Sandra L McCoy; Patricia A Tun; L Clarke Cox; Marianne Colangelo; Raj A Stewart; Arthur Wingfield
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2005-01

4.  Conducting spoken word recognition research online: Validation and a new timing method.

Authors:  Joseph Slote; Julia F Strand
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2016-06

5.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models.

Authors:  T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.059

6.  An online paradigm for exploring the self-reference effect.

Authors:  Sarah V Bentley; Katharine H Greenaway; S Alexander Haslam
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder.

Authors:  Alexander L Anwyl-Irvine; Jessica Massonnié; Adam Flitton; Natasha Kirkham; Jo K Evershed
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2020-02

8.  An online headphone screening test based on dichotic pitch.

Authors:  Alice E Milne; Roberta Bianco; Katarina C Poole; Sijia Zhao; Andrew J Oxenham; Alexander J Billig; Maria Chait
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2020-12-09

9.  Acoustic masking disrupts time-dependent mechanisms of memory encoding in word-list recall.

Authors:  Katheryn A Q Cousins; Hayim Dar; Arthur Wingfield; Paul Miller
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2014-05

10.  Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research.

Authors:  Matthew J C Crump; John V McDonnell; Todd M Gureckis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.