How much do we orient? A systematic approach to auditory distractionBeaman, C. P. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5124-242X, Campbell, T. and Marsh, J. E. (2021) How much do we orient? A systematic approach to auditory distraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 47 (7). pp. 1054-1066. ISSN 0278-7393
It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing. To link to this item DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000995 Abstract/SummaryData on orienting and habituation to irrelevant sound can distinguish between task-specific and general accounts of auditory distraction: Distractors either disrupt specific cognitive processes (e.g., Jones, 1993; Salamé & Baddeley, 1982), or remove more general-purpose attentional resources from any attention-demanding task (e.g., Cowan, 1995). Tested here is the prediction that there is no further auditory distraction effect on immediate serial recall with increments in the number of distractors beyond the “changing-state point” of two discrete distractors. A Bayes factor analysis refutes this nil hypothesis: This prediction, a key element of the strong changing-state hypothesis, is shown to be less likely than two competing alternatives. Quantitative predictions for distraction as a function of the number of distracters are derived for an orienting response (OR) and a stimulus mismatch (SMM) hypothesis, representing general and task-specific accounts respectively. The data are shown to be more likely under the SMM hypothesis. Prospects for a parametric account of auditory distraction are considered.
Download Statistics DownloadsDownloads per month over past year Altmetric Deposit Details University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record |