Abstract
Serial short-term memory is impaired by background sound, at least when a sound element suddenly deviates from an otherwise repetitive sequence (the deviation effect) and when each sound element in the sequence differs from the preceding one (the changing-state effect). Two competing theories have been proposed to explain these effects: One suggests that both effects are caused by the same mechanism (i.e., attentional resources being depleted by the sound), and the other suggests that the deviation effect is caused by attentional capture and that the changingstate effect is caused by interference between order processes. The present investigation found that working memory capacity predicts susceptibility to the deviation effect, but not to the changing-state effect, both when speech items (Experiment 1) and when tones (Experiment 2) produce the disruption. These results suggest that the two effects are caused by different mechanisms and support the duplex-mechanism account of auditory distraction.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Berti, S., & Schröger, E. (2003). Working memory controls involuntary attention switching: Evidence from an auditory distraction paradigm. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 1119–1122.
Colle, H. A., & Welsh, A. (1976). Acoustic masking in primary memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 15, 17–31.
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.
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769–786.
Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. New York: Psychology Press.
Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure “change”: Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68–80.
Debener, S., Kranczioch, C., Herrmann, C. S., & Engel, A. K. (2002). Auditory novelty oddball allows reliable distinction of topdown and bottom-up processes of attention. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 46, 77–84.
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. M., Barrilleaux, K. M., & Cowan, N. (2006). Individual differences in the ability to avoid distracting sounds. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 90–108.
Elliott, E. M., & 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. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.
Friedman, D., Cycowicz, Y. M., & Gaeta, H. (2001). The novelty P3: An event-related brain potential (ERP) sign of the brain’s evaluation of novelty. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 25, 355–373.
Heitz, R. P., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Focusing the spotlight: Individual differences in visual attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 217–240.
Hughes, R. W., Vachon, F., & Jones, D. M. (2005). Auditory attentional capture during serial recall: Violations at encoding of an algorithm based neural model? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 736–749.
Hughes, R. W., Vachon, F., & Jones, D. M. (2007). Disruption of shortterm memory by changing and deviant sounds: Support for a duplexmechanism account of auditory distraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 1050–1061.
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., & Mosdell, N. (1997). The role of habituation in the disruption of recall performance by irrelevant sound. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 549–564.
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169–183.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70.
Lange, E. B. (2005). Disruption of attention by irrelevant stimuli in serial recall. Journal of Memory & Language, 53, 513–531.
Lavie, N., & de Fockert, J. (2005). The role of working memory in attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 669–674.
Lustig, C., Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (2007). Inhibitory deficit theory: Recent developments in a “new view.” In D. S. Gorfein & C. M. MacLeod (Eds.), Inhibition in cognition (pp. 145–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Macken, W. J., Phelps, F. G., & Jones, D. M. (2009). What causes auditory distraction? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 139–144.
Macken, W. [J.], Tremblay, S., Alford, D., & Jones, D. (1999). Attentional selectivity in short-term memory: Similarity of process, not similarity of content, determines disruption. International Journal of Psychology, 34, 322–327.
Neath, I. (2000). Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 403–423.
Neath, I., Farley, L. A., & Surprenant, A. M. (2003). Directly assessing the relationship between irrelevant speech and articulatory suppression. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 1269–1278.
Öhman, A. (1979). The orienting response, attention, and learning: An information-processing perspective. In H. D. Kimmel, E. H. van Olst, & J. F. Orlebeke (Eds.), The orienting reflex in humans (pp. 443–471). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Parmentier, F. B. R. (2008). Towards a cognitive model of distraction by auditory novelty: The role of involuntary attention capture and semantic processing. Cognition, 109, 345–362.
Perham, N., Banbury, S. P., & Jones, D. M. (2007). Reduction in auditory distraction by retrieval strategy. Memory, 15, 465–473.
Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2006). Working memory capacity and attention network test performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 713–721.
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.
Siddle, D. A. T. (1991). Orienting, habituation, and resource allocation: An associative analysis. Psychophysiology, 28, 245–259.
Sikström, S., & Söderlund, G. (2007). Stimulus-dependent dopamine release in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychological Review, 114, 1047–1075.
Sokolov, E. N. (1963). Perception and the conditioned reflex. London: Pergamon.
Sörqvist, P. (2010). Effects of aircraft noise and speech on prose memory: What role for working memory capacity? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 112–118.
Sörqvist, P., Halin, N., & Hygge, S. (2010). Individual differences in susceptibility to the effects of speech on reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 67–76.
Sörqvist, P., Ljungberg, J. K., & Ljung, R. (2010). A sub-process view of working memory capacity: Evidence from effects of speech on prose memory. Memory, 18, 310–326.
Tremblay, S., & Jones, D. M. (1998). Role of habituation in the irrelevant sound effect: Evidence from the effects of token set size and rate of transition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 659–671.
Tremblay, S., Nicholls, A. P., Alford, D., & Jones, D. M. (2000). The irrelevant sound effect: Does speech play a special role? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 1750–1754.
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory & Language, 28, 127–154.
Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: Active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Review, 114, 104–132.
Unsworth, N., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2004). Working memory capacity and the antisaccade task: Individual differences in voluntary saccade control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 1302–1321.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research reported in this article was funded by the University of Gävle and a grant from the Swedish Research Council awarded to Staffan Hygge. Parts of the investigation reported here were presented at the Eighth Annual Auditory Perception, Cognition, and Action Meeting in Boston (November 19, 2009).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sörqvist, P. High working memory capacity attenuates the deviation effect but not the changing-state effect: Further support for the duplex-mechanism account of auditory distraction. Memory & Cognition 38, 651–658 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.5.651
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.5.651