» Articles » PMID: 34240010

Recall of Speech is Impaired by Subsequent Masking Noise: A Replication of Experiment 2

Overview
Date 2021 Jul 9
PMID 34240010
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: The presence of masking noise can impair speech intelligibility and increase the attentional and cognitive resources necessary to understand speech. The first study to demonstrate the negative cognitive effects of noisy speech found that participants had poorer recall for aurally-presented digits early in a list when later digits were presented in noise relative to quiet (Rabbitt, 1968). However, despite being cited nearly 500 times and providing the foundation for a wealth of subsequent research on the topic, the original study has never been directly replicated.

Methods: This study replicated Rabbitt (1968) with a large online sample and tested its robustness to a variety of analytical and scoring techniques.

Results: We replicated Rabbitt's key finding that listening to speech in noise impairs recall for items that came earlier in the list. The results were consistent when we used the original analytical technique (an ANOVA) and a more powerful analytical technique (generalized linear mixed effects models) that was not available when the original paper was published.

Discussion: These findings support the claim that effortful listening can interfere with encoding or rehearsal of previously presented information.

Citing Articles

Noisy speech impairs retention of previously heard information only at short time scales.

Brown V, Sewell K, Villanueva J, Strand J Mem Cognit. 2024; 53(2):536-546.

PMID: 38758512 PMC: 11569267. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-024-01583-y.

References
1.
Crump M, McDonnell J, Gureckis T . Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS One. 2013; 8(3):e57410. PMC: 3596391. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057410. View

2.
Cousins K, Dar H, Wingfield A, Miller P . Acoustic masking disrupts time-dependent mechanisms of memory encoding in word-list recall. Mem Cognit. 2014; 42(4):622-38. PMC: 4030694. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0377-7. View

3.
Piquado T, Cousins K, Wingfield A, Miller P . Effects of degraded sensory input on memory for speech: behavioral data and a test of biologically constrained computational models. Brain Res. 2010; 1365:48-65. PMC: 2993831. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.09.070. View

4.
Sarampalis A, Kalluri S, Edwards B, Hafter E . Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009; 52(5):1230-40. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0111). View

5.
Slote J, Strand J . Conducting spoken word recognition research online: Validation and a new timing method. Behav Res Methods. 2015; 48(2):553-66. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-015-0599-7. View