Literature DB >> 9348677

Individual differences in susceptibility to the "irrelevant speech effect".

W Ellermeier1, K Zimmer.   

Abstract

Individual differences in objective effects of noise on performance were analyzed with respect to their distribution, temporal stability, and the precision of measurement to be attained. Seventy-two subjects had to memorize sequences of visually presented digits while being exposed to one of three auditory background conditions which were randomly mixed on a trial-by-trial basis: (1) foreign speech; (2) pink noise; and (3) silence. Individual "irrelevant speech effects," operationalized by the difference in recall errors under speech and in silence, were normally distributed over a wide range extending from slight facilitation to severe disruption. When 25 subjects repeated the experiment after four weeks, the individual differences were replicated with a reliability of rtt = 0.45. Internal consistency, a measure of the precision with which individual effects can be measured in a single session, was moderate (alpha = 0.55). However, both retest, and consistency coefficients are severely attenuated by the use of (sound-minus-silence) difference scores, the reliability of which is bound to be considerably lower than that of the original error scores whenever these are correlated. Given that the original error rates in a specific auditory condition can be determined with reliabilities approaching 0.85, it may be concluded that individual performance decrements due to noise can be reliably measured in the "irrelevant speech" paradigm. Self-report measures of noise susceptibility collected to explore potential sources of the large inter-individual variation exhibited only weak relationships with the objectively measured noise effects: Subjects were quite inaccurate in assessing their individual impairment in the three auditory conditions, and a questionnaire-based measure of general noise sensitivity only accounted for a small portion of the variance in objectively measured performance decrements, although in both cases the predictive relationship was much stronger in female than in male subjects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9348677     DOI: 10.1121/1.419596

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  32 in total

1.  The phonological loop and the irrelevant speech effect: some comments on Neath (2000).

Authors:  A D Baddeley
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2000-09

Review 2.  Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory.

Authors:  I Neath
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2000-09

3.  Elimination of the word length effect by irrelevant sound revisited.

Authors:  S Tremblay; W J Macken; D M Jones
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2000-07

4.  Irrelevant speech, articulatory suppression, and phonological similarity: a test of the phonological loop model and the feature model.

Authors:  J Richard Hanley; Eirini Bakopoulou
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-06

5.  New considerations for the cognitive locus of impairment in the irrelevant-sound effect.

Authors:  Kirk A Stokes; Karen M Arnell
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2012-08

6.  High working memory capacity attenuates the deviation effect but not the changing-state effect: further support for the duplex-mechanism account of auditory distraction.

Authors:  Patrik Sörqvist
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2010-07

7.  Coherence of the irrelevant-sound effect: individual profiles of short-term memory and susceptibility to task-irrelevant materials.

Authors:  Emily M Elliott; Nelson Cowan
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2005-06

8.  What causes auditory distraction?

Authors:  William J Macken; Fiona G Phelps; Dylan M Jones
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-02

9.  The role of habituation and attentional orienting in the disruption of short-term memory performance.

Authors:  Jan Philipp Röer; Raoul Bell; Sandra Dentale; Axel Buchner
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2011-07

Review 10.  High working memory capacity does not always attenuate distraction: Bayesian evidence in support of the null hypothesis.

Authors:  Patrik Sörqvist; John E Marsh; Anatole Nöstl
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.