Changing-State Irrelevant Speech Disrupts Visual-Verbal but Not Visual-Spatial Serial Recall
Saved in:
| Title: | Changing-State Irrelevant Speech Disrupts Visual-Verbal but Not Visual-Spatial Serial Recall |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | John E. Marsh (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2024 50(11):1772-1790. |
| Availability: | American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 19 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Recall (Psychology), Spatial Ability, Memory, Speech, Attention Control, Auditory Stimuli, Retention (Psychology), Foreign Countries, Visual Stimuli, Verbal Stimuli |
| Geographic Terms: | United Kingdom |
| DOI: | 10.1037/xlm0001360 |
| ISSN: | 0278-7393 1939-1285 |
| Abstract: | In an influential article, Jones et al. (1995) provide evidence that auditory distraction by changing relative to repetitive auditory distracters (the changing-state effect) did not differ between a visual-verbal and visual-spatial serial recall task, providing evidence for an amodal mechanism for the representation of serial order in short-term memory that transcends modalities. This finding has been highly influential for theories of short-term memory and auditory distraction. However, evidence vis-à-vis the robustness of this result is sorely lacking. Here, two high-powered replications of Jones et al.'s (1995) crucial Experiment 4 were undertaken. In the first partial replication (n = 64), a fully within-participants design was adopted, wherein participants undertook both the visual-verbal and visual-spatial serial recall tasks under different irrelevant sound conditions, without a retention period. The second near-identical replication (n = 128), incorporated a retention period and implemented the task-modality manipulation as a between-participants factor, as per the original Jones et al. (1995; Experiment 4) study. In both experiments, the changing-state effect was observed for visual-verbal serial recall but not for visual-spatial serial recall. The results are consistent with modular and interference-based accounts of distraction and challenge some aspects of functional equivalence accounts. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1507951 |
| Database: | ERIC |
Be the first to leave a comment!
