Memory & Cognition

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 609–621 | Cite as

Evidence for habituation of the irrelevant-sound effect on serial recall

Article

Abstract

Working memory theories make opposing predictions as to whether the disruptive effect of task-irrelevant sound on serial recall should be attenuated after repeated exposure to the auditory distractors. Although evidence of habituation has emerged after a passive listening phase, previous attempts to observe habituation to to-be ignored distractors on a trial-by-trial basis have proven to be fruitless. With the present study, we suggest that habituation to auditory distractors occurs, but has often been overlooked because past attempts to measure habituation in the irrelevant-sound paradigm were not sensitive enough. In a series of four experiments, the disruptive effects of to-be-ignored speech and music relative to a quiet control condition were markedly reduced after eight repetitions, regardless of whether trials were presented in blocks (Exp. 1) or in a random order (Exp. 2). The auditory distractor’s playback direction (forward, backward) had no effect (Exp. 3). The same results were obtained when the auditory distractors were only presented in a retention interval after the presentation of the to-be-remembered items (Exp. 4). This pattern is only consistent with theoretical accounts that allow for attentional processes to interfere with the maintenance of information in working memory.

Keywords

Irrelevant sound effect Working memory Attentional orienting Serial recall Selective attention 

References

  1. Banbury, S., & Berry, D. C. (1997). Habituation and dishabituation to speech and office noise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 181–195. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.3.3.181 Google Scholar
  2. Beaman, C. P. (2004). The irrelevant sound phenomenon revisited: What role for working memory capacity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1106–1118. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.5.1106 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaman, C. P., Neath, I., & Surprenant, A. M. (2008). Modeling distributions of immediate memory effects: No strategies needed? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 219–229. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.219 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaman, C. P., & Röer, J. P. (2009). Learning and failing to learn in immediate memory. In N. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 395–400). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, R., Röer, J. P., & Buchner, A. (2013). Irrelevant speech disrupts item-context binding. Experimental Psychology, 60, 376–384. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000212 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, R., Röer, J. P., Dentale, S., & Buchner, A. (2012). Habituation of the irrelevant speech effect: Evidence for an attentional theory of short-term memory disruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1542–1557.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchner, A., Bell, R., Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2008). Sound source location modulates the irrelevant-sound effect. Memory & Cognition, 36, 617–628. doi:10.3758/MC.36.3.617 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchner, A., Irmen, L., & Erdfelder, E. (1996). On the irrelevance of semantic information for the “Irrelevant Speech” effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 765–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buchner, A., Rothermund, K., Wentura, D., & Mehl, B. (2004). Valence of distractor words increases the effects of irrelevant speech on serial recall. Memory & Cognition, 32, 722–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, T., Winkler, I., Kujala, T., & Näätänen, R. (2003). The N1 hypothesis and irrelevant sound: Evidence from token set size effects. Cognitive Brain Research, 18, 39–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Revth ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cowan, N. (1999). An embedded-processes model of working memory. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 62–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellermeier, W., & Zimmer, K. (1997). Individual differences in susceptibility to the “irrelevant speech effect”. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2191–2199. doi:10.1121/1.419596 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliott, E. M., & Briganti, A. M. (2012). Investigating the role of attentional resources in the irrelevant speech effect. Acta Psychologica, 140, 64–74. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.02.009 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elliott, E. M., & Cowan, N. (2001). Habituation to auditory distractors in a cross-modal, color–word interference task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 654–667. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.3.654 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Escera, C., Alho, K., Schröger, E., & Winkler, I. (2000). Involuntary attention and distractibility as evaluated with event-related brain potentials. Audiology and Neurotology, 5, 151–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughes, R. W., Vachon, F., & Jones, D. M. (2005). Auditory attentional capture during serial recall: Violations at encoding of an algorithm-based neural model? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 736–749. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.4.736 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hughes, R. W., Vachon, F., & Jones, D. M. (2007). Disruption of short-term memory by changing and deviant sounds: Support for a duplex-mechanism account of auditory distraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 1050–1061. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.1050 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones, D. M., Hughes, R. W., & Macken, W. J. (2010). Auditory distraction and serial memory: The avoidable and the ineluctable. Noise and Health, 12, 201–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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, and Cognition, 19, 369–381. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.2.369 Google Scholar
  23. Jones, D. M., Macken, W. J., & Mosdell, N. A. (1997). The role of habituation in the disruption of recall performance by irrelevant sound. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 549–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones, D. M., Miles, C., & Page, J. (1990). Disruption of proofreading by irrelevant speech: Effects of attention, arousal or memory? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klatte, M., Lachmann, T., Schlittmeier, S., & Hellbrück, J. (2010). The irrelevant sound effect in short-term memory: Is there developmental change? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1168–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lange, E. B. (2005). Disruption of attention by irrelevant stimuli in serial recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 513–531. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. LeCompte, D. C., Neely, C. B., & Wilson, J. R. (1997). Irrelevant speech and irrelevant tones: The relative importance of speech to the irrelevant speech effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 472–483. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.23.2.472 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Marsh, J. E., Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2009). Interference by process, not content, determines semantic auditory distraction. Cognition, 110, 23–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marsh, J. E., & Jones, D. M. (2010). Cross-modal distraction by background speech: What role for meaning? Noise & Health, 12, 210–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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, and Cognition, 17, 578–584.Google Scholar
  31. Morris, N., & Jones, D. M. (1990). Habituation to irrelevant speech: Effects on a visual short-term memory task. Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 291–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nairne, J. S. (1990). A feature model of immediate memory. Memory & Cognition, 18, 251–269. doi:10.3758/BF03213879 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neath, I. (1999). Modelling the disruptive effects of irrelevant speech on order information. International Journal of Psychology, 34, 410–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neath, I. (2000). Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 403–423. doi:10.3758/BF03214356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Neath, I., & Surprenant, A. M. (2001). The irrelevant sound effect is not always the same as the irrelevant speech effect. In H. L. Roediger III, J. S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. M. Surprenant (Eds.), The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 247–265). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Perham, N., & Vizard, J. (2011). Can preference for background music mediate the irrelevant sound effect? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 625–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Röer, J. P., Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (in press). Self-relevance increases the irrelevant speech effect: Attentional disruption by one’s own name. Journal of Cognitive Psychology. doi:10.1080/20445911.2013.828063
  38. Röer, J. P., Bell, R., Dentale, S., & Buchner, A. (2011). The role of habituation and attentional orienting in the disruption of short-term memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 39, 839–850. doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0070-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schlittmeier, S. J., Weisz, N., & Bertrand, O. (2011). What characterizes changing-state speech in affecting short-term memory? An EEG study on the irrelevant sound effect. Psychophysiology, 48, 1669–1680.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shelton, J. T., Elliott, E. M., Eaves, S. D., & Exner, A. L. (2009). The distracting effects of a ringing cell phone: An investigation of the laboratory and the classroom setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 513–521.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sörqvist, P. (2010). High working memory capacity attenuates the deviation effect but not the changing-state effect: Further support for the duplex-mechanism account of auditory distraction. Memory & Cognition, 38, 651–658. doi:10.3758/MC.38.5.651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sörqvist, P., Nöstl, A., & Halin, N. (2012). Working memory capacity modulates habituation rate: Evidence from a cross-modal auditory distraction paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 245–250. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0203-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tremblay, S., & Jones, D. M. (1998). Role of habituation in the irrelevant sound effect: Evidence from the effects of token set size and rate of transition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 659–671. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.3.659 Google Scholar
  44. Tremblay, S., Nicholls, A. P., Alford, D., & Jones, D. M. (2000). The irrelevant sound effect: Does speech play a special role? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1750–1754.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Vachon, F., Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2012). Broken expectations: Violation of expectancies, not novelty, captures auditory attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 164–177. doi:10.1037/a0025054 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Waters, W. F., McDonald, D. G., & Koresko, R. L. (1977). Habituation of the orienting response: A gating mechanism subserving selective attention. Psychophysiology, 14, 228–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyHeinrich-Heine-UniversitätDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Institut für Experimentelle PsychologieHeinrich-Heine-Universität DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations