Abstract
Two experiments tested competing predictions about the nature of the irrelevant speech effect that were derived from Neath’s (2000) feature model and from Salamé and Baddeley’s (1982) phonological loop model. The first experiment examined the combined effects of irrelevant speech and articulatory suppression when target items were presented auditorily. Contrary to the suggestions of Neath, but consistent with the phonological loop model, the effects of articulatory suppression and irrelevant speech were additive even when the irrelevant speech was presented during the retention interval. The second experiment examined the combined effects of irrelevant speech and phonological similarity when target items were presented visually. Consistent with the phonological loop model, the effects of phonological similarity and irrelevant speech were additive when participants were specifically instructed to use articulatory/phonological rehearsal to remember the list items. The results therefore contradicted Neath’s claim that irrelevant speech abolishes the phonological similarity effect when list items are presented visually. However, the effect of phonological similarity was abolished in the irrelevant speech conditions when no instructions were given concerning rehearsal. It is argued that the phonological similarity effect disappears in some experiments because participants sometimes employ a semantic rehearsal strategy, consistent with the views of Salamé and Baddeley (1986).
Article PDF
References
Baddeley, A. D. (1966). Short-term memory for word sequences as a function of acoustic, semantic and formal similarity.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,18, 362–365.
Baddeley, A. D. (1968). How does acoustic similarity influence shortterm memory?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,20, 249–264.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986).Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1990).Human memory: Theory and practice. London: Erlbaum.
Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Is working memory working?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,44A, 1–31.
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The phonological loop and the irrelevant speech effect: Some comments on Neath (2000).Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 544–549.
Baddeley, A. D., Lewis, V., &Vallar, G. (1984). Exploring the articulatory loop.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36A, 233–252.
Bridges, A. M., &Jones, D. M. (1996). Word dose in the disruption of serial recall by irrelevant speech: Phonological confusion or changing state?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49A, 919–939.
Burgess, N., &Hitch, G. J. (1999). Memory for serial order: A network model of the articulatory loop.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 429–460.
Colle, H. A., &Welsh, A. (1976). Acoustic making in primary memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,15, 17–32.
Conrad, R., &Hull, A. J. (1964). Information, acoustic confusion and memory span.British Journal of Psychology,55, 429–432.
Crowder, R. G. (1967). Prefix effects in immediate memory.Canadian Journal of Psychology,21, 450–461.
Crowder, R. G. (1978). Mechanisms of backward masking in the stimulus suffix effect.Psychological Review,85, 502–504.
Crowder, R. G., &Morton, J. (1969). Pre-categorical acoustic storage (PAS)Perception & Psychophysics,5, 365–373.
Ellermeier, W., &Zimmer, K. (1997). Individual differences in susceptibility to the irrelevant speech effect.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,102, 2191–2199.
Gathercole, S. E., &Baddeley, A. D. (1993).Working memory and language. Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.
Hanley, J. R. (1997). Does articulatory suppression remove the irrelevant speech effect?Memory,5, 423–431.
Hanley, J. R., &Broadbent, C. (1987). The effects of unattended speech on serial recall following auditory presentation.British Journal of Psychology,78, 287–297.
Henson, R. N. A. (1998). Short-term memory for serial order: The startend model.Cognitive Psychology,36, 73–117.
Jones, D. M. (1994). Disruption of memory for lip read lists by irrelevant speech: Further support for the changing state hypothesis.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 143–160.
Jones, D. M., &Macken, W. J. (1993). Irrelevant tones produce an irrelevant speech effect: Implications for phonological coding in working memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 369–381.
Jones, D. M., &Macken, W. J. (1995). Phonological similarity in the irrelevant speech effect: Within or between stream similarity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 103–115.
Jones, D. M., Madden, C. A., &Miles, C. (1992). Privileged access by irrelevant speech to short-term memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,44A, 645–659.
Larsen, J. D., Baddeley, A. D., &Andrade, J. D. (2000). Phonological similarity and irrelevant speech: Implications for models of shortterm verbal memory.Memory,8, 145–158.
Longoni, A. M., Richardson, J. T. E., &Aiello, A. (1993). Articulatory rehearsal and phonological storage in working memory.Memory & Cognition,21, 11–22.
Miles, C., Jones, D. M., &Madden, C. A. (1991). Locus of the irrelevant speech effect in short-term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 578–584.
Morton, J., Crowder, R. G., &Prussin, H. (1971). Experiments with the stimulus suffix effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology,91, 169–190.
Murray, D. J. (1967). The role of speech responses in short-term memory.Canadian Journal of Psychology,21, 263–276.
Murray, D. J. (1968). Articulation and acoustic confusability.Journal of Experimental Psychology,22, 679–684.
Nairne, J. S. (1990). A feature model of immediate memory.Memory & Cognition,18, 251–269.
Neath, I. (2000). Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 403–423.
Neath, I., Farley, L. A., & Surprenant, A. M. (in press). Directly assessing the relationship between irrelevant speech and articulatory suppression.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Neath, I., Surprenant, A. M., &LeCompte, D. C. (1998). Irrelevant speech eliminates the word length effect.Memory & Cognition,26, 343–354.
Page, M. P. A., &Norris, D. (1998). The primacy model: A new model of immediate serial recall.Psychological Review,105, 761–781.
Salamé, P., &Baddeley, A. D. (1982). Disruption of short-term memory by irrelevant speech: Implications for the structure of working memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 150–164.
Salamé, P., &Baddeley, A. [D.] (1986). Phonological factors in STM: Similarity and the unattended speech effect.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,24, 263–265.
Surprenant, A. M., LeCompte, D. C., &Neath, I. (2000). Manipulations of irrelevant information: Suffix effects with articulatory suppression and irrelevant speech.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,53A, 325–348.
Surprenant, A. M., Neath, I., &Lecompte, D. C. (1999). Irrelevant speech, phonological similarity, and presentation modality.Memory,7, 405–420.
Watkins, M. J., &Todres, A. K. (1980). Suffix effects manifest and concealed: Further evidence for a 20-second echo.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 46–53.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hanley, J.R., Bakopoulou, E. Irrelevant speech, articulatory suppression, and phonological similarity: A test of the phonological loop model and the feature model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10, 435–444 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196503
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196503