Irrelevant speech eliminates the word length effect

Theword length effect refers to the observation that memory is better for short than for long words. Theirrelevant speech effect refers to the finding that memory is better when items are presented against a quiet background than against one with irrelevant speech. According to Baddeley’s (1986, 1994) working memory, these variables should not interact: The word length effect arises from rehearsal by the articulatory control process, whereas irrelevant speech reduces recall through interference in the phonological store. Four experiments demonstrate that, like articulatory suppression, irrelevant speech eliminates the word length effect for both visual and auditory items. These results (1) provide further evidence against the ability of working memory to explain the word length and irrelevant speech effects and (2) confirm a specific prediction of Nairne’s (1990) feature model.     

Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory

The feature model (Nairne, 1990) is extended to account for the effects of irrelevant speech and concomitant interactions in immediate serial recall. In the feature model, both articulatory suppression and irrelevant speech are seen as adding noise to the memory representation, the difference being that articulatory suppression diverts more resources than does irrelevant speech. The addition of noise impairs recall because it reduces the probability of successful redintegration. When a competitor is incorrectly recalled, rather than the correct item, this competitor is recalled out of order, producing an increase in order errors. Six simulations are reported that show that the model accounts for (1) the impairment by both irrelevant speech and articulatory suppression, (2) the irrelevance of the phonological and semantic composition of the irrelevant speech, (3) greater disruption when the irrelevant speech tokens vary, (4) the abolition of the phonological similarity effect for visual, but not for auditory, items, (5) the abolition of the word length effect for both visual and auditory items, and (6) the abolition of the irrelevant speech effect under articulatory suppression for both visual and auditory items. The feature model is compared with the two other major views of irrelevant speech, the phonological store hypothesis and the changing state hypothesis.     

Elimination of the word length effect by irrelevant sound revisited

The word length effect refers to the tendency for lists of long words to be recalled less well than lists of short words. Theoretical and empirical objections are raised to a recent claim that irrelevant speech eliminates the word length effect (Neath, Suprenant, & LeCompte, 1998). A first experiment using a within-subjects design of adequate power (N = 65) fails to replicate their finding, showing instead that the word length effect is not differentially eliminated by speech as opposed to tones. In a second experiment, the effect of change (repeated vs. changing sounds) is shown to be additive to the effect of word length for both speech and nonspeech. Irrelevant speech and irrelevant tones have comparable effects on lists of short or lists of long words. These results are at variance with the feature model (e.g., Nairne, 1990).     

The phonological loop model of working memory: An ERP study of irrelevant speech and phonological similarity effects

The phonological loop model for retention of auditory verbal material in working memory, developed by Baddeley, assumes that irrelevant speech and phonological similarity influence only one and the same element of the system—that is, the phonological short-term store. We tested this idea by recording eventrelated potentials (ERPs) to auditorily presented letters that were phonologically similar or dissimilar and were to be memorized in the presence of more or less disturbing irrelevant speech. Irrelevant speech and phonological similarity caused ERP effects with clearly different scalp topographies, indicating that these factors influence different brain systems and hence probably different cognitive elements. Moreover, ERPs indicated that the phonological similarity effect might involve processes at the level of phonological analysis. Our data also support recent suggestions that the irrelevant speech effect is not based on the phonological similarity between relevant and irrelevant material, but on the phonological variability within the irrelevant stream.     

Irrelevant speech effects and sequence learning

The irrelevant speech effect is the finding that performance on serial recall tasks is impaired by the presence of irrelevant background speech. According to the object-oriented episodic record (O-OER) model, this impairment is due to a conflict of order information from two different sources: the seriation of the irrelevant speech and the rehearsal of the order of the to-be-remembered items. We tested the model's prediction that irrelevant speech should impair performance on other tasks that involve seriation. Experiments 1 and 2 verified that both an irrelevant speech effect and a changing state effect would obtain in a between-subjects design in which a standard serial recall measure was used, allowing employment of a between-subjects design in subsequent experiments. Experiment 3 showed that performance on a sequence-learning task was impaired by the presence of irrelevant speech, and Experiment 4 verified that performance is worse when the irrelevant speech changes more (the changing state effect). These findings support the prediction made by the O-OER model that one essential component to the irrelevant speech effect is serial order information.     

Effects of Irrelevant Sounds on Phonological Coding in Reading Comprehension and Short term Memory

The effects of irrelevant sounds on reading comprehension and short-term memory were studied in two experiments. In Experiment 1, adults judged the acceptability of written sentences during irrelevent speech, accompanied and unaccompanied singing, instrumental music, and in silence. Sentences varied in syntactic complexity: Simple sentences contained a right-branching relative clause ( The applause pleased the woman that gave the speech ) and syntactically complex sentences included a centre-embedded relative clause ( The hay that the farmer stored fed the hungry animals ). Unacceptable sentences either sounded acceptable ( The dog chased the cat that eight up all his food ) or did not ( The man praised the child that sight up his spinach ). Decision accuracy was impaired by syntactic complexity but not by irrelevant sounds. Phonological coding was indicated by increased errors on unacceptable sentences that sounded correct. These error rates were unaffected by irrelevant sounds. Experiment 2 examined effects of irrelevant sounds on ordered recall of phonologically similar and dissimilar word lists. Phonological similarity impaired recall. Irrelevant speech reduced recall but did not interact with phonological similarity. The results of these experiments question assumptions about the relationship between speech input and phonological coding in reading and the short-term store.     

Disruption of memory for lip-read lists by irrelevant speech: Further support for the changing state hypothesis

Two experiments critically re-examine the finding of Campbell and Dodd (1984, Experiment 2), which suggests that irrelevant speech disrupts the encoding of visual material for serial recall. Support is sought for the competing view that the effect of irrelevant speech is on storage by comparing the effect of a range of acoustic conditions on memory for graphic and lip-read lists. Initially, serial short-term recall of visually presented lists was examined with irrelevant speech that was both asynchronous with the visually presented items and of varied speech content (Experiment 1a). In this experiment substantial impairments in recall of both graphic and lip-read lists were found. However, with unvarying asynchronous speech (Experiment 1b) the effect of speech was small and non-significant. Experiment 2 examined the effect of changing state and of synchrony of speech with lip movements. When conditions of synchronous and asynchronous unvarying speech were contrasted, no significant effect of synchrony or irrelevant speech was found (Experiment 2a and 2c). In contrast, when the speech was varying in content, a strong effect of irrelevant speech was found; moreover, the effect was roughly the same for synchronous and asynchronous materials (Experiment 2b). The contrast in outcome with varying and unvarying speech provides strong support for the “changing state” model of the irrelevant speech effect. Coupled with the absence of an effect of synchrony in Experiment 2, these experiments reinforce the view that disruption by irrelevant speech occurs in memory, not at encoding.     

Does Articulatory Suppression Remove the Irrelevant Speech Effect?

Salamé and Baddeley (1982) reported that the effect of irrelevant speech on the serial recall of visually presented sequences was abolished when subjects performed articulatory suppression during presentation and recall of the target items. They argued that this is because suppression isolates visually presented material from the phonological store, which they consider to be the locus of the irrelevant speech effect. In the present experiment, an alternative interpretation of Salamé and Baddeley's findings was investigated. Salamé and Baddeley used nine-item sequences, and observed very low levels of recall when articulation was suppressed. It is therefore possible that Salamé and Baddeley's failure to observe any additional effect of irrelevant speech reflects either a floor effect or else a strategic choice by subjects to abandon the use of a phonological memory code because of task difficulty. In the experiment reported here, this issue was investigated by using both six- and nine-item sequences. Results revealed no effect of irrelevant speech under articulatory suppression even at the shorter sequence length. The results therefore replicate and extend the findings of Salamé and Baddeley (1982), and provide support for their view that visually presented material must be articulated before it becomes susceptible to interference from irrelevant speech.     

Irrelevant speech effects and statistical learning

Immediate serial recall of visually presented verbal stimuli is impaired by the presence of irrelevant auditory background speech, the so-called irrelevant speech effect. Two of the three main accounts of this effect place restrictions on when it will be observed, limiting its occurrence either to items processed by the phonological loop (the phonological loop hypothesis) or to items that are not too dissimilar from the irrelevant speech (the feature model). A third, the object-oriented episodic record (O-OER) model, requires only that the memory task involves seriation. The present studies test these three accounts by examining whether irrelevant auditory speech will interfere with a task that does not involve the phonological loop, does not use stimuli that are compatible with those to be remembered, but does require seriation. Two experiments found that irrelevant speech led to lower levels of performance in a visual statistical learning task, offering more support for the O-OER model and posing a challenge for the other two accounts.     

Spontaneous speech generation

A speech generation task was performed by bilingual subjects whilst they received irrelevant messages in one ear. The irrelevant messages varied in content as well as in language. Although these messages appeared to have a significant influence on the rate of speech, this variation was not consistent with any of the three hypotheses suggested. A further speech generation experiment was then carried out in which subjects received as irrelevant auditory input, in one ear, either a prose passage or “emotional” words repeated over a period of 1 min. Although the rate of speech did not seem to be affected by the irrelevant input, a memory test for words spoken, as distinct from words heard seemed to indicate that the “emotional” words were significantly better recalled than the words from the prose passage. When a control experiment was performed with prose or repeated neutral words as auditory input, no such difference in recall was obtained. This result was seen as favouring Deutsch's model of the blocking of irrelevant speech.     

The importance of semantic similarity to the irrelevant speech effect

Irrelevant speech disrupts immediate recall of a short sequence of items. Salamé and Baddeley (1982) found a very small and nonsignificant increase in the irrelevant speech effect when the speech comprised items semantically identical to the to-be-remembered items, leading subsequent researchers to conclude that semantic similarity plays no role in the irrelevant speech effect. Experiment 1 showed that strong free associates of the to-be-remembered items disrupted serial recall to a greater extent than words that were dissimilar to the to-be-remembered items. Experiment 2 showed that this same pattern of disruption in a free recall task. Theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Habituation to irrelevant speech: effects on a visual short-term memory task

The Baddeley and Hitch (1974) formulation of short-term or working memory embodied a phonological store within the articulatory loop component of the model. Later formulations specifically postulated an acoustic filter that endowed only speech-like stimuli with obligatory access to this phonological store. This paper presents evidence that this phonological store may have two filters, one of which is subject to habituation and can therefore attenuate the entry of irrelevant speech, thus undermining the obligatory access assumption of the model. An experiment is reported in which subjects were presented with a habituation period comprising 20 min of irrelevant speech--speech to be ignored by the subject--before a test phase in which a visually presented serial recall task with concurrent irrelevant speech was performed. The effect of irrelevant speech, which impairs performance on the primary task when there is no habituation phase, is reduced markedly in those conditions where the speech used in the habituation phase is the same as that used in the test phase, if the irrelevant speech is in a language different from that presented during the subsequent trials or if the habituator is a hummed version of the irrelevant speech passage. When a nonspeech sound (pink noise) is used in the habituation phase, a large irrelevant speech effect is found in the test phase. Morris, Quayle, and Jones (1989) found that humming did not produce an irrelevant speech effect, which suggests that the first filter is permeable to humming but that the second filter is not.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Irrelevant speech,articulatory suppression,and phonological similarity: A test of the phonological loop model and the feature model

Two experiments tested competing predictions about the nature of the irrelevant speech effect that were derived from Neath's (2000) feature model and from Salamé and Baddeley's (1982) phonological loop model. The first experiment examined the combined effects of irrelevant speech and articulatory suppression when target items were presented auditorily. Contrary to the suggestions of Neath, but consistent with the phonological loop model, the effects of articulatory suppression and irrelevant speech were additive even when the irrelevant speech was presented during the retention interval The second experiment examined the combined effects of irrelevant speech and phonological similarity when target items were presented visually. Consistent with the phonological loop model, the effects of phonological similarity and irrelevant speech were additive when participants were specifically instructed to use articulatory/phonological rehearsal to remember the list items. The results therefore contradicted Neath's claim that irrelevant speech abolishes the phonological similarity effect when list items are presented visually. However, the effect of phonological similarity was abolished in the irrelevant speech conditions when no instructions were given concerning rehearsal. It is argued that the phonological similarity effect disappears in some experiments because participants sometimes employ a semantic rehearsal strategy, consistent with the views of Salamé and Baddeley (1986).     

Manipulations of irrelevant information: Suffix effects with articulatory suppression and irrelevant speech

Numerous studies have demonstrated impaired recall when the to-be-remembered information is accompanied or followed by irrelevant information. However, no current theory of immediate memory explains all three common methods of manipulating irrelevant information: requiring concurrent articulation, presenting irrelevant speech, and adding a stimulus suffix. Five experiments combined these manipulations to determine how they interact and which theoretical framework most accurately and completely accounts for the data. In Experiments 1 and 2, a list of auditory items was followed by an irrelevant speech sound (the suffix) while subjects engaged in articulatory suppression. Although articulatory suppression reduced overall recall compared to a control condition, comparable suffix effects were seen in both conditions. Experiments 3 and 4 found reliable suffix effects when list presentation was accompanied by irrelevant speech. Experiment 5 found a suffix effect even when the irrelevant speech was composed of a set of different items. Implications for working memory, pre-categorical acoustic store, the changing-state hypothesis, and the feature model are discussed.     

无关言语对阅读的干扰基于内容还是过程？——来自眼动研究的证据

采用眼动追踪技术,考察无关言语对句子材料相同的自然阅读和校对阅读的影响,探讨无关言语对阅读的干扰机制是基于内容还是过程。结果发现,有意义言语显著干扰了正常的阅读行为,而无意义言语与无背景音条件不存在显著差异。并且背景言语类型与任务类型的交互作用显著,表现为言语的语义成分只干扰了自然阅读,而对校对阅读没有影响。实验结果支持过程干扰假说。     

Phonological similarity and the irrelevant speech effect: implications for models of short-term verbal memory

Three experiments studied the interaction between irrelevant speech and phonological similarity within both the remembered and the irrelevant auditory material. Phonological similarity within the remembered list impaired performance in both baseline and irrelevant speech conditions, whereas phonological similarity between the remembered and ignored irrelevant items did not influence performance. Although there was a tendency for similarity within the irrelevant items to reduce interference, this proved to be a less robust finding. Implications for the theoretical interpretation of the irrelevant speech effect are discussed.     

Phonological similarity and the irrelevant speech effect: Implications for models of short-term verbal memory

Three experiments studied the interaction between irrelevant speech and phonological similarity within both the remembered and the irrelevant auditory material. Phonological similarity within the remembered list impaired performance in both baseline and irrelevant speech conditions, whereas phonological similarity between the remembered and ignored irrelevant items did not influence performance. Although there was a tendency for similarity within the irrelevant items to reduce interference, this proved to be a less robust finding. Implications for the theoretical interpretation of the irrelevant speech effect are discussed.     

不同背景音对中文篇章阅读影响的眼动研究

采用眼动记录技术,考察不同背景音对中文篇章阅读和词汇加工的影响。结果发现：（1）与安静和白噪音背景相比,无关言语背景下的总阅读时间更长、阅读速度更慢、注视次数更多、平均眼跳幅度更小。（2）不同背景音下的首次注视时间和凝视时间无显著差异,而无关言语背景下的回视路径时间和总注视时间较白噪音条件下的更长。结果表明,无关言语干扰了读者的阅读过程,其语义成分和声学特征变化是干扰产生的重要原因;这种干扰体现在词汇加工中的语义整合阶段。     

Backward recall and benchmark effects of working memory

Working memory was designed to explain four benchmark memory effects: the word length effect, the irrelevant speech effect, the acoustic confusion effect, and the concurrent articulation effect. However, almost all research thus far has used tests that emphasize forward recall. In four experiments, we examine whether each effect is observable when the items are recalled in reverse order. Subjects did not know which recall direction would be required until the time of test, ensuring that encoding processes would be identical for both recall directions. Contrary to predictions of both the primacy model and the feature model, the benchmark memory effect was either absent or greatly attenuated with backward recall, despite being present with forward recall. Direction of recall had no effect on the more difficult conditions (e.g., long words, similar-sounding items, items presented with irrelevant speech, and items studied with concurrent articulation). Several factors not considered by the primacy and feature models are noted, and a possible explanation within the framework of the SIMPLE model is briefly presented.     

Interference in memory by process or content? A reply to Neath (2000)

The approach to the irrelevant sound effect by Neath (2000) is discussed in terms of the contrast between content-based and process-based interference. Four themes are highlighted: First, problematic features of the feature model are highlighted; second, results not considered by Neath are presented; third, empirical underpinnings of the feature model not related to the irrelevant-sound effect are questioned; last, the parsimony of the feature model is questioned. The balance of the evidence seems to be in favor of a process-based approach, on the grounds that it provides a comprehensive account of acoustic and taskbased factors within the irrelevant sound effect, for both speech and nonspeech sound.