Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Next article
Research Article

The Role of Talker Familiarity in Auditory Distraction

Published Online:February 19, 2019https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000425

Abstract

Abstract. The current research employed a classic irrelevant sound effect paradigm and investigated the talker-specific content of the irrelevant speech. Specifically, we aimed to determine if the participants’ familiarity with the irrelevant speech’s talker affected the magnitude of the irrelevant sound effect. Experiment 1 was an exploration of talker familiarity established in a natural listening environment (i.e., a university classroom) in which we manipulated the participants’ relationships with the talker. In Experiment 2, we manipulated the participants’ familiarity with the talker via 4 days of controlled exposure to the target talker’s audio recordings. For both Experiments 1 and 2, a robust effect of irrelevant speech was found; however, regardless of the talker manipulation, talker familiarity did not influence the size of the effect. We interpreted the results within the processing view of the auditory distraction effect and highlighted the notion that talker familiarity may be more vulnerable than once thought.

References

  • Abercrombie, D. (1967). Elements of general phonetics. Chicago, IL: Aldine. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Adobe Systems. (2005). Adobe Audition CC (Version 2) [Computer software]. San Jose, CA: Adobe Systems. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Allport, A. (1993). Attention and control: Have we been asking the wrong questions? A critical review of twenty-five years. In E. MeyerS. KornblurnEds., Attention and performance XVI: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 182–218). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Barker, B. A. & Newman, R. S. (2004). Listen to your mother! The role of talker familiarity in infant streaming. Cognition, 94, B45–B53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.06.001 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Beaman, C. P. (2004). The irrelevant sound phenomenon revisited: What role for working memory capacity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 5, 1106–1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.5.1106 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chandrasekaran, B., Chan, A. H. D. & Wong, P. C. M. (2011). Neural processing of what and who information in speech. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2690–2700. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2011.21631 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Church, B. A. & Schacter, D. L. (1994). Perceptual specificity of auditory priming: Implicit memory for voice intonation and fundamental frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 521–533. First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Colle, H. A. & Welsh, A. (1976). Acoustic masking in primary memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(76)90003-7 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Drouin, J. R., Monto, N. R. & Theodore, R. M. (2017). Talker-specificity effects in spoken language processing: Now you see them, now you don’t. In A. LahiriS. KotzerEds., The speech processing lexicon: Neurocognitive and behavioural approaches (pp. 107–128). Berlin, Germany/Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter GmbH. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

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

  • Elliott, E. M. & Briganti, A. M. (2012). Investigating the role of attentional resources in the irrelevant speech effect. Acta Psychologica, 140, 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.02.009 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Hadley, T. (2013). Experience. The New Yorker. New York, NY: Condé Nast. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

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

  • Hughes, R. W. & Jones, D. M. (2001). The intrusiveness of sound: Laboratory findings and their implications for noise abatement. Noise & Health, 13, 55–74. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hughes, R. W. & Jones, D. M. (2003). Indispensable benefits and unavoidable costs of unattended sound for cognitive functioning. Noise & Health, 6, 63–76. First citation in articleMedline, Google Scholar

  • Hughes, R. W., Marsh, J. E. & Jones, D. M. (2009). Perceptual-gestural (mis)mapping in serial short-term memory: The impact of talker variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 35, 1411–1425. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017008 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Hughes, R. W., Marsh, J. E. & Jones, D. M. (2011). Role of serial order in the impact of talker variability on short-term memory: Testing a perceptual organization-based account. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1435–1447. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0116-x 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, 1050–1061. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.1050 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • IEEE. (1969). IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 17, 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAU.1969.1162058 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jones, D. M., 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, 645–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749208401304 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Körner, U., Röer, J. P., Buchner, A. & Bell, R. (2017). Working memory capacity is equally unrelated to auditory distraction by changing-state and deviant sounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 96, 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.05.005 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kuhl, P. K. (1993). Early linguistic experience and phonetic perception: Implications for theories of developmental speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 125–139. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Liberman, A. M. (1957). Some results of research on speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 29, 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1908635 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Maibauer, A. M., Markis, T. A., Newell, J. & McLennan, C. T. (2014). Famous talker effects in spoken word recognition. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0600-4 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Marsh, J. E., Yang, J., Qualter, P., Richardson, C., Perham, N., Vachon, F. & Hughes, R. W. (2018). Postcategorical auditory distraction in short-term memory: Insights from increased task load and task type. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 44, 882–897. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000492 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Naoi, N., Minagawa-Kawai, Y., Kobayashi, A., Takeuchi, K., Nakamura, K., Yamamoto, J.-I. & Shozo, K. (2012). Cerebral responses to infant-directed speech and the effect of talker familiarity. NeuroImage, 59, 1735–1744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.093 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Nearey, T. M. (1990). The segment as a unit of speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 18, 347–373. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Newman, R. S. & Evers, S. (2007). The effect of talker familiarity on stream segregation. Journal of Phonetics, 35, 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.10.004 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Neumann, O. (1996). Theories of attention. In O. NeumannW. PrinzEds., Handbook of perception and action Vol. 3: Attention (pp. 389–446). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Nygaard, L. C. & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 355–3769. First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Pisoni, D. B. (1997). Some thoughts on “normalization” in speech perception. In K. JohnsonJ. W. MullennixEds., Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 9–32). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Poe, E. A. (1841). Eleonora: A fable. The gift: A Christmas and New Year’s present for 1842 (pp. 17–322). Philadelphia, PA: Carey and Hart. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Psychology Software Tools, Inc. [E-Prime 2.0]. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.pstnet.com First citation in articleGoogle 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, 925–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.828063 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Röer, J. P., Körner, U., Buchner, A. & Bell, R. (2017). Attentional capture by taboo words: A functional view of auditory distraction. Emotion, 17, 740–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000274 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Schneider, W. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Souza, P., Gehani, N., Wright, R. & McCloy, D. (2013). The advantage of knowing the talker. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 24, 689–700. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.24.8.6 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Sörqvist, P. & Rönnberg, J. (2014). Individual differences in distractibility: An update and a model. PsyCh Journal, 3, 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.47 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Theodore, R. M., Blumstein, S. E. & Luthra, S. (2015). Attention modulates specificity effects in spoken word recognition: Challenges to the time-course hypothesis. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 1674–1684. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0854-0 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, 1005–1015. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.4.1005 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Yonan, C. A. & Sommers, M. S. (2000). The effects of talker familiarity on spoken word identification in younger and older listeners. Psychology & Aging, 15, 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.15.1.88 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar