Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Open AccessRegistered Report

Loud Auditory Distractors Are More Difficult to Ignore After All

A Preregistered Replication Study With Unexpected Results

Published Online:October 18, 2022https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000554

Abstract

Abstract. Working memory performance is markedly disrupted when task-irrelevant sound is played during item presentation or retention. In a preregistered replication study, we systematically examined the role of intensity in two types of auditory distraction. The first type of distraction is the changing-state effect (i.e., increased disruption by changing-state relative to steady-state sequences). The second type is the auditory deviant effect (i.e., increased disruption by auditory deviant relative to steady-state sequences). In previous experiments, the changing-state effect was independent of intensity. Whether a deviation in intensity leads to an increase in disruption has not yet been examined. We replicated the classic finding that the increased disruption by changing-state relative to steady-state sequences is independent of intensity. Contrary to previous studies, we found an unexpected main effect of intensity. Steady-state and changing-state sequences presented at 75 dB(A) were more disruptive than presented at 45 dB(A), suggesting that intensity plays a more important role than previously assumed in the disruption of working memory performance. Furthermore, we tested the prediction of the violation of expectancy account, according to which deviant distractors at a lower and higher intensity than the rest of the sequence should be equally disruptive. Our results were consistent with this prediction.

References

  • Alikadij, L., & Röer, J. P. (2021). Preregistration for the project “Loud auditory distractors are more difficult to ignore after all: A preregistered replication study with unexpected results. https://osf.io/6hygj First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Alikadij, L., & Röer, J. P. (2022). Raw data and materials for “Loud auditory distractors are more difficult to ignore after all: A preregistered replication study with unexpected results. https://osf.io/ejx5m/ First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Althen, H., Grimm, S., & Escera, C. (2011). Fast detection of unexpected sound intensity decrements as revealed by human evoked potentials. PLoS ONE, 6(12), e28522. 10.1371/journal.pone.0028522 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database (Release 1) [CD-ROM]. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Banbury, S., & Berry, D. C. (1997). Habituation and dishabituation to speech and office noise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(3), 181–195. 10.1037/1076-898x.3.3.181 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Banbury, S. P., Macken, W. J., Tremblay, S., & Jones, D. M. (2001). Auditory distraction and short-term memory: Phenomena and practical implications. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43(1), 12–29. 10.1518/001872001775992462 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Beaman, C. P. (2005). Auditory distraction from low-intensity noise: A review of the consequences for learning and workplace environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(8), 1041–1064. 10.1002/acp.1134 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • 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, and Cognition, 23(2), 459–471. 10.1037/0278-7393.23.2.459 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Beaman, C. P., & Röer, J. P. (2009). Learning and failing to learn within immediate memory. In 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, Texas, USA (pp. 395–400). First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bell, R., Mieth, L., Röer, J. P., Troche, S. J., & Buchner, A. (2019). Preregistered replication of the auditory deviant effect: A robust benchmark finding. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 13. 10.5334/joc.64 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bell, R., Röer, J. P., & Buchner, A. (2013). Irrelevant speech disrupts item-context binding. Experimental Psychology, 60(5), 376–384. 10.1027/1618-3169/a000212 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Bell, R., Röer, J. P., Dentale, S., & Buchner, A. (2012). Habituation of the irrelevant sound effect: Evidence for an attentional theory of short-term memory disruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(6), 1542–1557. 10.1037/a0028459 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Bell, R., Röer, J. P., Marsh, J. E., Storch, D., & Buchner, A. (2017). The effect of cognitive control on different types of auditory distraction. Experimental Psychology, 64(5), 359–368. 10.1027/1618-3169/a000372 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Colle, H. A. (1980). Auditory encoding in visual short-term recall: Effects of noise intensity and spatial location. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(6), 722–735. 10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90403-x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Colle, H. A., & Welsh, A. (1976). Acoustic masking in primary memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15(1), 17–31. 10.1016/s0022-5371(76)90003-7 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dalton, P., & Hughes, R. W. (2014). Auditory attentional capture: Implicit and explicit approaches. Psychological Research, 78(3), 313–320. 10.1007/ s00426-014-0557-5 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Ellermeier, W., & Hellbrück, J. (1998). Is level irrelevant in „irrelevant speech“? Effects of loudness, signal-to-noise ratio, and binaural unmasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1406–1414. 10.1037/0096-1523.24.5.1406 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Ellermeier, W., & Zimmer, K. (1997). Individual differences in susceptibility to the “irrelevant speech effect”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102(4), 2191–2199. 10.1121/1.419596 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Ellermeier, W., & Zimmer, K. (2014). The psychoacoustics of the irrelevant sound effect. Acoustical Science and Technology, 35(1), 10–16. 10.1250/ast.35.10 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Elliott, E. M. (2002). The irrelevant-speech effect and children: Theoretical implications of developmental change. Memory & Cognition, 30(3), 478–487. 10.3758/bf03194948 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. 10.3758/bf03193146 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Foley, L., Anderson, C. J., & Schutz, M. (2020). Re-Sounding alarms: Designing ergonomic auditory interfaces by embracing musical insights. Healthcare, 8(4), 389. 10.3390/healthcare8040389 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Haapakangas, A., Haka, M., Keskinen, E., & Hongisto, V. (2008). Effect of speech intelligibility on task performance an experimental laboratory study. In B. Griefahn (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Foxwoods, Connecticut, USA(pp. 395–401). First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hughes, R. W. (2014). Auditory distraction: A duplex-mechanism account. PsyCh Journal, 3(1), 30–41. 10.1002/pchj.44 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Hughes, R. W., Hurlstone, M. J., Marsh, J. E., Vachon, F., & Jones, D. M. (2013). Cognitive control of auditory distraction: Impact of task difficulty, foreknowledge, and working memory capacity supports duplex-mechanism account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(2), 539–553. 10.1037/a0029064 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • 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, and Cognition, 31, 736–749. 10.1037/0278-7393.31.4.736 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Hughes, R. W., Vachon, F., & Jones, D. M. (2007). Disruption of short-term memory by changing and deviant sounds: Support for a duplex-mechanism account of auditory distraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(6), 1050–1061. 10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.1050 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Jacobsen, T., Horenkamp, T., & Schröger, E. (2003). Preattentive memory-based comparison of sound intensity. Audiology and Neurotology, 8(6), 338–346. 10.1159/000073518 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Jones, D., Madden, C., & Miles, C. (1992). Privileged access by irrelevant speech to short-term memory: The role of changing-state. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 44(4), 645–669. 10.1080/14640749208401304 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Körner, U., Röer, J. P., Buchner, A., & Bell, R. (2018). Time of presentation affects auditory distraction: Changing-state and deviant sounds disrupt similar working memory processes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(3), 457–471. 10.1177/1747021818758239 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Marsh, J. E., Röer, J. P., Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (2014). Predictability and distraction: Does the neural model represent postcategorical features? PsyCh Journal, 3(1), 58–71. 10.1002/pchj.50 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Näätänen, R., Paavilainen, P., Rinne, T., & Alho, K. (2007). The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: A review. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(12), 2544–2590. 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.026 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Nöstl, A., Marsh, J. E., & Sörqvist, P. (2012). Expectations modulate the magnitude of attentional capture by auditory events. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e48569. 10.1371/journal.pone.0048569 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Parmentier, F. B., Elsley, J. V., Andrés, P., & Barceló, F. (2011). Why are auditory novels distracting? Contrasting the roles of novelty, violation of expectation and stimulus change. Cognition, 119(3), 374–380. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.02.001 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Röer, J. P., Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (2013). Self-relevance increases the irrelevant sound effect: Attentional disruption by one’s own name. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(8), 925–931. 10.1080/20445911.2013.828063 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Röer, J. P., Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (2014a). Evidence for habituation of the irrelevant-sound effect on serial recall. Memory & Cognition, 42(4), 609–621. 10.3758/s13421-013-0381-y First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Röer, J. P., Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (2014b). What determines auditory distraction? On the roles of local auditory changes and expectation violations. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e84166. 10.1371/journal.pone.0084166 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Röer, J. P., Bell, R., Dentale, S., & Buchner, A. (2011). The role of habituation and attentional orienting in the disruption of short-term memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 39(5), 839–850. 10.3758/s13421-010-0070-z First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Röer, J. P., Bell, R., Körner, U., & Buchner, A. (2019). A semantic mismatch effect on serial recall: Evidence for interlexical processing of irrelevant speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(3), 515–525. 10.1037/xlm0000596 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Röer, J. P., Bell, R., Marsh, J. E., & Buchner, A. (2015). Age equivalence in auditory distraction by changing and deviant speech sounds. Psychology and Aging, 30(4), 849–855. 10.1037/pag0000055 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Salamé, P., & Baddeley, A. (1982). Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: Implications for the structure of working memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(2), 150–164. 10.1016/s0022-5371(82)90521-7 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schlittmeier, S. J., Hellbrück, J., Thaden, R., & Vorländer, M. (2008). The impact of background speech varying in intelligibility: Effects on cognitive performance and perceived disturbance. Ergonomics, 51(5), 719–736. 10.1080/00140130701745925 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Shestopalova, L. B., Petropavlovskaia, E. A., Semenova, V. V., & Nikitin, N. I. (2018). Mismatch negativity and psychophysical detection of rising and falling intensity sounds. Biological Psychology, 133, 99–111. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.01.018 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Tremblay, S., & Jones, D. M. (1999). Change of intensity fails to produce an irrelevant sound effect: Implications for the representation of unattended sound. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(4), 1005–1015. 10.1037/0096-1523.25.4.1005 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • 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, and Cognition, 26(6), 1750–1754. 10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.1750 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Vachon, F., Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2012). Broken expectations: Violation of expectancies, not novelty, captures auditory attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(1), 164–177. 10.1037/a0025054 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Vachon, F., Labonté, K., & Marsh, J. E. (2017). Attentional capture by deviant sounds: A noncontingent form of auditory distraction? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(4), 622–634. 10.1037/xlm0000330 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Vachon, F., Marsh, J. E., & Labonté, K. (2020). The automaticity of semantic processing revisited: Auditory distraction by a categorical deviation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(7), 1360–1397. 10.1037/xge0000714 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar