Time of presentation affects auditory distraction: Changing-state and deviant sounds disrupt similar working memory processes

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 457-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrike Körner ◽  
Jan P Röer ◽  
Axel Buchner ◽  
Raoul Bell
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Serial Recall ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Recall Task ◽  
Auditory Distraction ◽  
Memory Processes ◽  
Serial Recall Task ◽  
Time Of Presentation

Four experiments tested conflicting predictions about which components of the serial-recall task are most sensitive to auditory distraction. Changing-state (Experiments 1a and 1b) and deviant distractor sounds (Experiments 2a and 2b) were presented in one of four different intervals of the serial-recall task: (1) during the first half of encoding, (2) during the second half of encoding, (3) during the first half of retention, or (4) during the second half of retention. According to the embedded-processes model, both types of distractors should interfere with the encoding and rehearsal of targets in the focus of attention. According to the duplex-mechanism account, changing-state distractors should interfere only with rehearsal, whereas deviant distractors should interfere only with encoding. Inconsistent with the latter view, changing-state and deviant distractor sounds interfered with both the encoding and the retention of the targets. Both types of auditory distraction were most pronounced during the second half of encoding when the increasing rehearsal demands had to be coordinated with the continuous updating of the rehearsal set. These findings suggest that the two types of distraction disrupt similar working memory mechanisms.

Effect of Perceiving Computing to Be an Acquirable Skill upon a Computer-Mediated Serial Recall Task

2005 ◽  
Vol 100 (2) ◽  
pp. 354-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Brosnan
Keyword(s):  
Serial Recall ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Recall Task ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Term Memory ◽  
Computer Mediated ◽  
Serial Recall Task ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Pencil And Paper ◽  
Traditional Assessments

Serial recall tasks assess the capacity of verbal short-term memory. The perception of computing as an acquirable skill rather than a fixed ability affected performance upon computer-based serial recall tasks but did not affect performance on comparable pencil-and-paper tasks. Computerized versions of traditional assessments should control for this.

scholarly journals Positive and negative mood states do not influence cross-modal auditory distraction in the serial-recall paradigm

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e0260699
Author(s):  
Saskia Kaiser ◽  
Axel Buchner ◽  
Raoul Bell
Keyword(s):  
Serial Recall ◽  
Mood State ◽  
Negative Mood ◽  
Mood States ◽  
Auditory Distraction ◽  
State Effect ◽  
Serial Recall Task ◽  
Negative Mood States ◽  
Emotional Pictures ◽  
Automatic Capture

The aim of this study was to examine whether positive and negative mood states affect auditory distraction in a serial-recall task. The duplex-mechanism account differentiates two types of auditory distraction. The changing-state effect is postulated to be rooted in interference-by-process and to be automatic. The auditory-deviant effect is attributed to attentional capture by the deviant distractors. Only the auditory-deviant effect, but not the changing-state effect, should be influenced by emotional mood states according to the duplex-mechanism account. Four experiments were conducted to test how auditory distraction is affected by emotional mood states. Mood was induced by autobiographical recall (Experiments 1 and 2) or the presentation of emotional pictures (Experiments 3 and 4). Even though the manipulations were successful in inducing changes in mood, neither positive mood (Experiments 1 and 3) nor negative mood (Experiments 2 and 4) had any effect on distraction despite large samples sizes (N = 851 in total). The results thus are not in line with the hypothesis that auditory distraction is affected by changes in mood state. The results support an automatic-capture account according to which the auditory-deviant effect and the changing-state effect are mainly stimulus-driven effects that are rooted in the automatic processing of the to-be-ignored auditory stream.

Constant Capacity in an Immediate Serial-Recall Task

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
pp. 634-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nelson Cowan ◽  
Zhijian Chen ◽  
Jeffrey N. Rouder
Keyword(s):  
Serial Recall ◽  
Recall Task ◽  
Immediate Serial Recall ◽  
Serial Recall Task

scholarly journals Dissociation Between Speech and Emotion Effects in Short-Term Memory: A Data Reanalysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Wiens
Keyword(s):  
Serial Recall ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Hypothesis Test ◽  
General Level ◽  
Auditory Distraction ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Emotional Words ◽  
Serial Recall Task ◽  
Bayesian Hypothesis Test ◽  
Missing Item

Performance in visual serial recall tasks is often impaired by irrelevant auditory distracters. The duplex-mechanism account of auditory distraction states that if the distracters provide order cues, these interfere with the processing of the order cues in the serial recall task (interference by process). In contrast, the unitary account states that distracters capture only attention on a general level (attentional distraction) without interfering specifically withorder processing. Marsh et al. (2018, Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 44, 882-897) reported finding a dissociation between the effects of serial recall tasks and those of a missing-item task on the disruptive effects of speech and of emotional words, as predicted by the duplex-mechanism account. Critically, the reported analyses did not test specifically for the claimed dissociation. Therefore, I reanalyzed the Marsh et al. data and conducted the appropriate analyses. I also tested the dissociation more directly and added a Bayesian hypothesis test to measure the strength of the evidence for a dissociation. Results provided strong evidence for a dissociation (i.e., crossover interaction) between effects of speech and of emotion. Because the duplex-mechanism account predicts this dissociation between speech effects (interference by process) and emotion effects (attentionaldiversion) whereas the unitary account does not, Marsh et al.’s data support the duplex-mechanism account. However, to show that this dissociation is robust, researchers are advised to replicate this dissociation in an adversarial registered report.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document