Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 139–144 | Cite as

What causes auditory distraction?

  • William J. MackenEmail author
  • Fiona G. Phelps
  • Dylan M. Jones
Brief Reports

Abstract

The role of separating task-relevant from task-irrelevant aspects of the environment is typically assigned to the executive functioning of working memory. However, pervasive aspects of auditory distraction have been shown to be unrelated to working memory capacity in a range of studies of individual differences. We measured individual differences in global pattern matching and deliberate recoding of auditory sequences, and showed that, although deliberate processing was related to short-term memory performance, it did not predict the extent to which that performance was disrupted by task-irrelevant sound. Individual differences in global sequence processing were, however, positively related to the degree to which auditory distraction occurred. We argue that much auditory distraction, rather than being a negative function of working memory capacity, is in fact a positive function of the acuity of obligatory auditory processing.

Keywords

Serial Recall Articulatory Suppression Irrelevant Speech Auditory Distraction Auditory Sequence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  2. Banbury, S., & Berry, D. (1998). Disruption of office-related tasks by speech and office noise. British Journal of Psychology, 893, 499–517.Google Scholar
  3. Beaman, C. P. (2004). The irrelevant sound phenomenon revisited: What role for working memory capacity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 1106–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaman, C. P., & Jones, D. M. (1997). Role of serial order in the irrelevant speech effect: Tests of the changing-state hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 459–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colle, H. A., & Welsh, A. (1976). Acoustic masking in primary memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 15, 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 331–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doupe, A. J., & Kuhl, P. (1999). Birdsong and human speech: Common themes and mechanisms. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 22, 567–631.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellermeier, W., & Zimmer, K. (1997). Individual differences in susceptibility to the “irrelevant speech effect”. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2191–2199.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elliott, E., & Cowan, N. (2005). Coherence of the irrelevant-sound effect: Individual profiles of short-term memory and susceptibility to task-irrelevant materials. Memory & Cognition, 33, 664–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engle, R., Kane, M., & Tuholski, S. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Engle, R., Tuholski, S., Laughlin, J., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foxton, J. M., Talcott, J. B., Witton, C., Brace, H., McIntyre, F., & Griffiths, T. (2003). Reading skills are related to global, but not local, acoustic pattern perception. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 343–344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hellbrück, J., Namba, S., & Kuwano, S. (1996). Irrelevant background speech and human performance: Is there long-term habituation? Journal of the Acoustical Society of Japan, 17, 239–247.Google Scholar
  16. Heyes, C. (2001). Causes and consequences of imitation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 253–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hickok, G., Buchsbaum, B., Humphries, C., & Muftuler, T.(2003). Auditory—motor interaction revealed by fMRI: Speech, music, and working memory in area Spt. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 673–682.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2000). Towards a functional neuroanatomy of speech perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 131–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2004). Dorsal and ventral streams: A framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language. Cognition, 92, 67–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2003a). Indispensable benefits and unavoidable costs of irrelevant sound for cognitive functioning. Noise & Health, 6, 63–76.Google Scholar
  21. Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2003b). A negative order-repetition priming effect: Inhibition of order in unattended auditory sequences? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones, D. M., & Macken, W. J. (1995a). Organizational factors in the effect of irrelevant speech: The role of spatial location and timing. Memory & Cognition, 23, 192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones, D. M., & Macken, W. J. (1995b). Phonological similarity in the irrelevant speech effect: Within- or between-stream similarity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, D. M., Macken, W. J., & Mosdell, N. (1997). The role of habituation in the disruption of recall by irrelevant sound. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 549–564.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, D. M., Macken, W. J., & Nicholls, A. (2004). The phonological store of working memory: Is it phonological and is it a store? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 656–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Macken, W. J., & Jones, D. M. (1995). Functional characteristics of the inner voice and the inner ear: Single or double agency? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 436–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Macken, W. J., Tremblay, S., Alford, D., & Jones, D. M. (1999). Attentional selectivity in short-term memory: Similarity of process, not similarity of content, determines disruption. International Journal of Psychology, 34, 322–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Salamé, P., & Baddeley, A. [D.] (1982). Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: Implications for the structure of working memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 21, 150–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Süß, H.-M., Oberauer, K., Wittmann, W., Wilhelm, O., & Schulze R. (2002). Working-memory capacity explains reasoning ability—and a little bit more. Intelligence, 30, 261–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vogel, E. K., McCollough, A. W., & Machizawa, M. G. (2005). Neural measures reveal individual differences in controlling access to working memory. Nature, 438, 500–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Warren, R. (1999). Auditory perception: A new analysis and synthesis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Wilson, M. (2001). The case for sensorimotor coding in working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilson, M., & Fox, G. (2007). Working memory for language is not special: Evidence for an articulatory loop for novel stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 470–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • William J. Macken
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fiona G. Phelps
    • 1
  • Dylan M. Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyCardiff UniversityCardiffWales

Personalised recommendations