The Phonological Loop and the Irrelevant Speech Effect: Some Comments on Neath (2000)

Overview

Journal Psychon Bull Rev

Specialty Psychology

Date 2000 Nov 18

PMID 11082863

Citations 20

Authors

A D Baddeley

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Neath (2000) presents a useful overview of the evidence to be explained by any model of the effects of irrelevant speech on immediate serial memory and proposes a model accompanied by computational simulation. While his review is in general accurate, it is limited in its explanation of the crucial characteristics of the disrupting sounds. It also neglects strategic issues, particularly the tendency for subjects to switch strategy as list length increases. As a result, his model fails to account for the absence of an interaction between irrelevant speech and acoustic similarity for lists of span length. Points of issue between Neath's feature hypothesis and the phonological loop interpretation are outlined, and the contribution of his computational simulation is discussed.

Citing Articles

The phonological store of working memory: A critique and an alternative, perceptual-motor, approach to verbal short-term memory.

Hughes R Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2024; 78(2):240-263.

PMID: 38785305 PMC: 11783984. DOI: 10.1177/17470218241257885.

The Impact of Different Types of Auditory Warnings on Working Memory.

Lei Z, Ma S, Li H, Yang Z Front Psychol. 2022; 13:780657.

PMID: 35282225 PMC: 8916232. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.780657.

Disentangling the influences of multiple thalamic nuclei on prefrontal cortex and cognitive control.

Phillips J, Kambi N, Redinbaugh M, Mohanta S, Saalmann Y Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021; 128:487-510.

PMID: 34216654 PMC: 8393355. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.06.042.

Working Memory and Speech Recognition in Noise Under Ecologically Relevant Listening Conditions: Effects of Visual Cues and Noise Type Among Adults With Hearing Loss.

Miller C, Stewart E, Wu Y, Bishop C, Bentler R, Tremblay K J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017; 60(8):2310-2320.

PMID: 28744550 PMC: 5829805. DOI: 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-H-16-0284.

Using effective connectivity analyses to understand processing architecture: Response to commentaries by Samuel, Spivey and McQueen, Eisner and Norris.

Gow Jr D, Olson B Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2017; 31(7):869-875.

PMID: 28090547 PMC: 5232413. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2016.1192656.

References

Baddeley A . The influence of acoustic and semantic similarity on long-term memory for word sequences. Q J Exp Psychol. 1966; 18(4):302-9. DOI: 10.1080/14640746608400047. View

Page M, Norris D . The primacy model: a new model of immediate serial recall. Psychol Rev. 1998; 105(4):761-81. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.105.4.761-781. View

Ellermeier W, Hellbruck J . Is level irrelevant in "irrelevant speech"? Effects of loudness, signal-to-noise ratio, and binaural unmasking. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1999; 24(5):1406-14. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.24.5.1406. View

Hall J, Wilson K, Humphreys M, Tinzmann M, Bowyer P . Phonemic-similarity effects in good vs. poor readers. Mem Cognit. 1983; 11(5):520-7. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196989. View

Baddeley A, Ecob J . Simultaneous acoustic and semantic coding in short-term memory. Nature. 1970; 227(5255):288-9. DOI: 10.1038/227288a0. View

Baddeley A, Chincotta D, Stafford L, Turk D . Is the word length effect in STM entirely attributable to output delay? Evidence from serial recognition. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2002; 55(2):353-69. DOI: 10.1080/02724980143000523. View

Baddeley A, Gathercole S, Papagno C . The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychol Rev. 1998; 105(1):158-73. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.105.1.158. View

Larsen J, Baddeley A, Andrade J . Phonological similarity and the irrelevant speech effect: implications for models of short-term verbal memory. Memory. 2000; 8(3):145-57. DOI: 10.1080/096582100387579. View

Neath I, Surprenant A, Lecompte D . Irrelevant speech eliminates the word length effect. Mem Cognit. 1998; 26(2):343-54. DOI: 10.3758/bf03201145. View

10.

JOHNSTON R . Phonological coding in dyslexic readers. Br J Psychol. 1982; 73(Pt 4):455-60. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1982.tb01827.x. View

11.

Cowan N, Nugent L, Elliott E, Geer T . Is there a temporal basis of the word length effect? A response to Service (1998). Q J Exp Psychol A. 2000; 53(3):647-60. DOI: 10.1080/713755905. View

12.

Lecompte D, Shaibe D . On the irrelevance of phonological similarity to the irrelevant speech effect. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1997; 50(1):100-18. DOI: 10.1080/713755679. View

13.

Mann V, Liberman I, Shankweiler D . Children's memory for sentences and word strings in relation to reading ability. Mem Cognit. 1980; 8(4):329-35. DOI: 10.3758/bf03198272. View

14.

Baddeley A, Salame P . The unattended speech effect: perception or memory?. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1986; 12(4):525-9. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.12.4.525. View

15.

Waters G, Caplan D . The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1996; 49(1):51-75. DOI: 10.1080/713755607. View

16.

Neath I . Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory. Psychon Bull Rev. 2000; 7(3):403-23. DOI: 10.3758/bf03214356. View

17.

Salame P, Baddeley A . Noise, unattended speech and short-term memory. Ergonomics. 1987; 30(8):1185-94. DOI: 10.1080/00140138708966007. View

18.

Robbins T, Anderson E, Barker D, Bradley A, Fearnyhough C, Henson R . Working memory in chess. Mem Cognit. 1996; 24(1):83-93. DOI: 10.3758/bf03197274. View

19.

Conrad R, Hull A . INFORMATION, ACOUSTIC CONFUSION AND MEMORY SPAN. Br J Psychol. 1964; 55:429-32. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1964.tb00928.x. View

20.

Baddeley A . Short-term memory for word sequences as a function of acoustic, semantic and formal similarity. Q J Exp Psychol. 1966; 18(4):362-5. DOI: 10.1080/14640746608400055. View