Directly assessing the relationship between irrelevant speech and irrelevant tapping.

Surprenant, Aimée M.; Neath, Ian; Bireta, Tamra J.; Allbritton, David

doi:10.1037/1196-1961.62.3.141

Cited by 8 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We checked this possibility by assessing the association of the size of interference effects between the item and order STM conditions across participants. We first determined an index of the relative amount of interference observed in each STM condition by computing the difference between recognition performance in the no-interference condition and in the rhythmic interference condition and we divided this difference by the level of recognition performance in the no-interference condition (see [36]. This measure has the advantage of being more fined grained than raw score differences by taking into account the overall level of recognition performance in the baseline condition [36].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We first determined an index of the relative amount of interference observed in each STM condition by computing the difference between recognition performance in the no-interference condition and in the rhythmic interference condition and we divided this difference by the level of recognition performance in the no-interference condition (see [36]. This measure has the advantage of being more fined grained than raw score differences by taking into account the overall level of recognition performance in the baseline condition [36]. Given the clear absence of interaction between stimulus domain and type of interference in the preceding analysis, we combined data from the two stimulus domains for each STM condition in order to optimize the reliability of the index of interference effects in the item and order STM conditions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When STM tasks are performed concurrently with interfering tasks (e.g., irrelevant speech, irrelevant tones, articulatory suppression, finger tapping), STM performance for serial order information is impacted to a greater extent than is maintenance of item information [31–34]. The selective effect of irrelevant auditory distractors on order STM has been interpreted as a conflict between concurrent seriation processes involved in the maintenance of order information in STM as well as in the processing of distracting auditory information [35,36]. Other studies proposed that this effect of interference is due to the involvement of similar motor planning programs in the interfering and serial order recall tasks [37,38], which is also consistent with the serial conflict hypothesis considering that similar serial order mechanisms are involved in memory for order and control of speech production [39].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Domain-Generality of Timing-Based Serial Order Processes in Short-Term Memory: New Insights from Musical and Verbal Domains

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several models in the verbal domain of short-term memory (STM) consider a dissociation between item and order processing. This view is supported by data demonstrating that different types of time-based interference have a greater effect on memory for the order of to-be-remembered items than on memory for the items themselves. The present study investigated the domain-generality of the item versus serial order dissociation by comparing the differential effects of time-based interfering tasks, such as rhythmic interference and articulatory suppression, on item and order processing in verbal and musical STM domains. In Experiment 1, participants had to maintain sequences of verbal or musical information in STM, followed by a probe sequence, this under different conditions of interference (no-interference, rhythmic interference, articulatory suppression). They were required to decide whether all items of the probe list matched those of the memory list (item condition) or whether the order of the items in the probe sequence matched the order in the memory list (order condition). In Experiment 2, participants performed a serial order probe recognition task for verbal and musical sequences ensuring sequential maintenance processes, under no-interference or rhythmic interference conditions. For Experiment 1, serial order recognition was not significantly more impacted by interfering tasks than was item recognition, this for both verbal and musical domains. For Experiment 2, we observed selective interference of the rhythmic interference condition on both musical and verbal order STM tasks. Overall, the results suggest a similar and selective sensitivity to time-based interference for serial order STM in verbal and musical domains, but only when the STM tasks ensure sequential maintenance processes.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Domain-Generality of Timing-Based Serial Order Processes in Short-Term Memory: New Insights from Musical and Verbal Domains

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The contrasts for all experiments are reported along with the effect sizes (Cohen's d) and the magnitude of the memory effects (see Surprenant, Neath, Bireta, & Allbritton, 2008) in each of the forward and backward conditions in Table 1. For instance, the magnitude of the phonological similarity effect was given as a percentage by calculating the difference in recall performance between the dissimilar and similar condi-tions, divided by recall performance in the dissimilar condition ( [(Dis Sim)/Dis] * 100).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting backward recall and benchmark memory effects: a reply to Bireta et al. (2010)

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When participants are asked to recall lists of items in the reverse order, known as backward recall, several benchmark memory phenomena, such as the word length effect, are abolished (Bireta et al. Memory & Cognition 38:279-291, 2010). Bireta et al. (Memory & Cognition 38:279-291, 2010) suggested that in backward recall, reliance on order retention is increased at the expense of item retention, leading to the abolition of itembased phenomena. In a subsequent study, however, Guérard and Saint-Aubin (in press) showed that four lexical factors known to modulate item retention were unaffected by recall direction. In a series of five experiments, we examined the source of the discrepancy between the two studies. We revisited the effects of phonological similarity, word length, articulatory suppression, and irrelevant speech, using open and closed pools of words in backward and forward recall. The results are unequivocal in showing that none of these effects are influenced by recall direction, suggesting that Bireta et al. 's (Memory & Cognition 38:279-291, 2010) results are the consequence of their particular stimuli.

show abstract

“…A distractibility index illustrating the effect of irrelevant sound was obtained by calculating the difference in performance between the two conditions (silence/irrelevant sound), divided by performance in the silent control condition (see Surprenant, Neath, Bireta, & Allbritton, 2008). Correlational analyzes were conducted to evaluate the relationship between the distractibility index ISE performance and DSM clinical symptoms measured by the CAARS.…”

Section: Relation Between Adhd Symptoms and Isementioning

confidence: 99%

Vulnerability to the Irrelevant Sound Effect in Adult ADHD

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: An ecologically valid adaptation of the irrelevant sound effect paradigm was employed to examine the relative roles of short-term memory, selective attention and sustained attention in ADHD. Method: Thirty-two adults with ADHD and 32 control participants completed a serial recall task in silence or whilst ignoring irrelevant background sound. Results: The serial recall performance in adults with ADHD was reduced relative to controls in both conditions. The degree of interference due to irrelevant sound was greater for adults with ADHD. Furthermore, a positive correlation was observed between task performance under conditions of irrelevant sound, and the extent of attentional problems reported by patients on a clinical symptom scale. Conclusion:The results demonstrate that adults with ADHD exhibit impaired short term memory and a low resistance to distraction; however, their capacity for sustained attention is preserved as the impact of irrelevant sound diminished over the course of the task.Keywords: adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, irrelevant sound effect, selective attention, sustained attention, short term memory Adult ADHD and ISE 2

show abstract

Directly assessing the relationship between irrelevant speech and irrelevant tapping.

Cited by 8 publications

References 43 publications

Domain-Generality of Timing-Based Serial Order Processes in Short-Term Memory: New Insights from Musical and Verbal Domains

Domain-Generality of Timing-Based Serial Order Processes in Short-Term Memory: New Insights from Musical and Verbal Domains

Revisiting backward recall and benchmark memory effects: a reply to Bireta et al. (2010)

Vulnerability to the Irrelevant Sound Effect in Adult ADHD

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About