An irrelevant speech effect with repeated and continuous background speech

LeCompte, Denny C.

doi:10.3758/bf03210978

Cited by 69 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1B). Also consistent with previous findings (Jones & Macken, 1993;LeCompte, 1995) the multiple items produced more disruption than the single items did. The literature on irrelevant speech effects between single items and quiet conditions are somewhat mixed.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The literature on irrelevant speech effects between single items and quiet conditions are somewhat mixed. Effects have been demonstrated with a repeated sound and even with a similar continuous sound compared to quiet in some experiments (Jones et al, 1992a(Jones et al, , 1992bLeCompte, 1995) while in others no reliable effect have been observed (Jones, 1994;Jones & Macken, 1995a,1995b.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on theoretical explanations (Jones et al, 1992a(Jones et al, , 1992bBanbury et al, 2001) as well as empirical findings (e.g. Jones & Macken, 1993;LeCompte, 1995), the repetition of multiple items should produce more disruption than the repetition of a single item. However, in the PET experiment there were no significant performance differences between the single item and multiple item conditions, likely due to ceiling effects.…”

Section: The Irrelevant Speech Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The irrelevant speech effect: a PET study

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Positron emission tomography (PET) was performed in normal volunteers during a serial recall task under the influence of irrelevant speech comprising both single item repetition and multi-item sequences. An interaction approach was used to identify brain areas specifically related to the irrelevant speech effect. We interpreted activations as compensatory recruitment of complementary working memory processing, and decreased activity in terms of suppression of task relevant areas invoked by the irrelevant speech. The interaction between the distractors and working memory revealed a significant effect in the left, and to a lesser extent in the right, superior temporal region, indicating that initial phonological processing was relatively suppressed. Additional areas of decreased activity were observed in an a priori defined cortical network related to verbal working memory, incorporating the bilateral superior temporal and inferior/middle frontal cortices extending into Broca's area on the left. We also observed a weak activation in the left inferior parietal cortex, a region suggested to reflect the phonological store, the subcomponent where the interference is assumed to take place. The results suggest that the irrelevant speech effect is correlated with and thus tentatively may be explained in terms of a suppression of components of the verbal working memory network as outlined. The results can be interpreted in terms of inhibitory top-down attentional mechanisms attenuating the influence of the irrelevant speech, although additional studies are clearly necessary to more fully characterize the nature of this phenomenon and its theoretical implications for existing short-term memory models.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Irrelevant Speech Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The irrelevant speech effect: a PET study

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most studies of the ISE on serial recall have used one list length, typically eight or nine items LeCompte, 1995). However, detrimental effects of irrelevant sounds on recall have been found in adult participants with lists of five to eight letters (Salamé & Baddeley, 1986).…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The irrelevant-speech effect and children: theoretical implications of developmental change

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The phonological loop component is specialized for the storage and rehearsal of verbal material. It has been studied in secondary tasks such as articulatory suppression, word length, phonological similarity, and irrelevant speech (Baddeley, Thomson, & Buchanan, 1975;Colle & Welsh, 1976;LeCompte, 1995;Salame & Baddeley, 1982). In contrast, the visuospatial sketchpad is specialized for the storage and rehearsal of visual and spatial, typically nonverbal, material (see, e,g., Logie, 1995).…”

Section: New Theoretical Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The “r” that psychology forgot: Research on writing processes

Levy

1997

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Development of theory and methodology related to the psychology of reading and mathematical problem solving has far outpaced progress in the realm of the psychology of writing. However, recently published theories may serve to link written language production research with mainstream psychology, and new computer-based methodologies may help to make conducting research in writing more tractable. This paper describes several new initiatives for studying Writing within a framework based on recent theories of working memory, Previous Presidential Addresses to the Society for Computers in Psychology have usually taken one of three broad approaches: (1) depict the state of the art involving the range of uses of computers in college classrooms; (2) engage in long-range forecasting regarding the possible uses of computers n years hence; (3) describe a research area in psychology that makes heavy use of computers, but is not one with which most persons would have great familiarity, The present address falls into the last of these three.Let me begin by explaining my title. The "R" that seems to have been largely overlooked as a research topic by psychologists is the second R in the phrase readin " ritin', and 'rithmetic, coined years ago by someone who clearly could not spell very well. Writing is very important to academics. It is largely because of our written work that we are promoted, tenured, funded and otherwise recognized professionally, But it seems that writing as the subject of research has been overlooked by psychologists. Consider that during the last 30 years there have been over 44,000 publications in the psychological literature focusing on memory processes. During this same period, more than 31,000 contributions dealing with reading and about 14,000 examining mathematics and arithmetic have been published. In sharp contrast, only 1,050 scholarly contributions have appeared that focus on writing processes.' Although every major general psychology textbook contains a discussion of readThis paper is based on the 1996 Presidential Address to the Society for Computers in Psychology, Chicago, Some of the research described here was supported by the Norman Shulevitz Foundation. Requests for reprints should be sent to the author at Box 112250, University of Florida. Gainesville FL 32611-2250 or to levy@psych. utl.edu. Reprints may also be requested by accessing http://www. psych.ufl.eduHevy on the World-Wide Web.ing processes, and most offer a treatment of mathematical problem solving, none has even an index entry for writing, Of the dozen current cognitive psychology textbooks, only two (Haberlandt, 1994;Kellogg, 1995) have even a cursory treatment of research in written language production.There are at least two good reasons why writingprocess research has been largely ignored by psychologists, First, we simply have not had much in the way of theory to motivate or guide research programs. Theories of speech production, text processing, and memory, among others, have nothing explicit to say regarding writing proc...

show abstract

An irrelevant speech effect with repeated and continuous background speech

Cited by 69 publications

References 17 publications

The irrelevant speech effect: a PET study

The irrelevant speech effect: a PET study

The irrelevant-speech effect and children: theoretical implications of developmental change

The “r” that psychology forgot: Research on writing processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About