Abstract
The role of separating task-relevant from task-irrelevant aspects of the environment is typically assigned to the executive functioning of working memory. However, pervasive aspects of auditory distraction have been shown to be unrelated to working memory capacity in a range of studies of individual differences. We measured individual differences in global pattern matching and deliberate recoding of auditory sequences, and showed that, although deliberate processing was related to short-term memory performance, it did not predict the extent to which that performance was disrupted by task-irrelevant sound. Individual differences in global sequence processing were, however, positively related to the degree to which auditory distraction occurred. We argue that much auditory distraction, rather than being a negative function of working memory capacity, is in fact a positive function of the acuity of obligatory auditory processing.
Article PDF
References
Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Banbury, S., & Berry, D. (1998). Disruption of office-related tasks by speech and office noise. British Journal of Psychology, 893, 499–517.
Beaman, C. P. (2004). The irrelevant sound phenomenon revisited: What role for working memory capacity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 1106–1118.
Beaman, C. P., & Jones, D. M. (1997). Role of serial order in the irrelevant speech effect: Tests of the changing-state hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 459–471.
Colle, H. A., & Welsh, A. (1976). Acoustic masking in primary memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 15, 17–32.
Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 331–335.
Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford University Press.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
Doupe, A. J., & Kuhl, P. (1999). Birdsong and human speech: Common themes and mechanisms. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 22, 567–631.
Ellermeier, W., & Zimmer, K. (1997). Individual differences in susceptibility to the “irrelevant speech effect”. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2191–2199.
Elliott, E., & Cowan, N. (2005). Coherence of the irrelevant-sound effect: Individual profiles of short-term memory and susceptibility to task-irrelevant materials. Memory & Cognition, 33, 664–675.
Engle, R., Kane, M., & Tuholski, S. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engle, R., Tuholski, S., Laughlin, J., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331.
Foxton, J. M., Talcott, J. B., Witton, C., Brace, H., McIntyre, F., & Griffiths, T. (2003). Reading skills are related to global, but not local, acoustic pattern perception. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 343–344.
Hellbrück, J., Namba, S., & Kuwano, S. (1996). Irrelevant background speech and human performance: Is there long-term habituation? Journal of the Acoustical Society of Japan, 17, 239–247.
Heyes, C. (2001). Causes and consequences of imitation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 253–261.
Hickok, G., Buchsbaum, B., Humphries, C., & Muftuler, T.(2003). Auditory—motor interaction revealed by fMRI: Speech, music, and working memory in area Spt. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 673–682.
Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2000). Towards a functional neuroanatomy of speech perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 131–138.
Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2004). Dorsal and ventral streams: A framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language. Cognition, 92, 67–99.
Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2003a). Indispensable benefits and unavoidable costs of irrelevant sound for cognitive functioning. Noise & Health, 6, 63–76.
Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2003b). A negative order-repetition priming effect: Inhibition of order in unattended auditory sequences? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 199–218.
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, & Cognition, 19, 369–381.
Jones, D. M., & Macken, W. J. (1995a). Organizational factors in the effect of irrelevant speech: The role of spatial location and timing. Memory & Cognition, 23, 192–200.
Jones, D. M., & Macken, W. J. (1995b). Phonological similarity in the irrelevant speech effect: Within- or between-stream similarity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 103–115.
Jones, D. M., Macken, W. J., & Mosdell, N. (1997). The role of habituation in the disruption of recall by irrelevant sound. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 549–564.
Jones, D. M., Macken, W. J., & Nicholls, A. (2004). The phonological store of working memory: Is it phonological and is it a store? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 656–674.
Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75–82.
Macken, W. J., & Jones, D. M. (1995). Functional characteristics of the inner voice and the inner ear: Single or double agency? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 436–448.
Macken, W. J., Tremblay, S., Alford, D., & Jones, D. M. (1999). Attentional selectivity in short-term memory: Similarity of process, not similarity of content, determines disruption. International Journal of Psychology, 34, 322–327.
Salamé, P., & Baddeley, A. [D.] (1982). Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: Implications for the structure of working memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 21, 150–164.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
Süß, H.-M., Oberauer, K., Wittmann, W., Wilhelm, O., & Schulze R. (2002). Working-memory capacity explains reasoning ability—and a little bit more. Intelligence, 30, 261–288.
Vogel, E. K., McCollough, A. W., & Machizawa, M. G. (2005). Neural measures reveal individual differences in controlling access to working memory. Nature, 438, 500–503.
Warren, R. (1999). Auditory perception: A new analysis and synthesis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, M. (2001). The case for sensorimotor coding in working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 44–57.
Wilson, M., & Fox, G. (2007). Working memory for language is not special: Evidence for an articulatory loop for novel stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 470–473.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research for this article was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council of the U.K. (Award RES-062-23-0011).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Macken, W.J., Phelps, F.G. & Jones, D.M. What causes auditory distraction?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16, 139–144 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.139
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.139