This paper reviews the literature on the irrelevant sound effect and concludes that, contrary to some claims, the data consistently show that irrelevant sound and articulatory suppression are not functionally equivalent. We evaluate the contribution of Larsen and Baddeley (2003 in this issue) and briefly discuss additional data in support of their position. We perform an error analysis on data from their third experiment and simulate detailed aspects of those data using our primacy model of immediate serial recall. Our model is briefly related to a number of findings in the literature on irrelevant sound.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaddeleyA. D. (1968). How does acoustic similarity influence short-term memory? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,20, 249–263.
2.
BaddeleyA. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3.
BaddeleyA. D. (2000). The phonological loop and the irrelevant speech effect: Some comments on Neath. Psychological Bulletin and Review, 7, 544–549.
4.
BaddeleyA. D., & HitchG. J.(1974). Working memory. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press.
5.
BaddeleyA. D.LewisV., & VallarG. (1984). Exploring the articulatory loop. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 233–252.
6.
BjorkE. L., & HealyA. F. (1974). Short-term order and item retention. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 13, 80–97.
7.
BregmanA. S. (1990). Auditory scene analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
BridgesA. M., & JonesD. M. (1996). Word-dose in the disruption of serial recall by irrelevant speech: Phonological confusions or changing state? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 919–939.
9.
BrownG. D. A.PreeceT., & HulmeC. (2000). Oscillator-based memory for serial order. Psychological Review, 107, 127–181.
10.
BurgessN., & HitchG. J. (1999). Memory for serial order: A network model of the phonological loop and its timing. Psychological Review, 106, 551–581.
11.
ColleH. A., & WelshA. (1976). Acoustic masking in primary memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 15, 17–32.
12.
EstesW. K. (1973). Phonemic coding and rehearsal in short-term memory for letter strings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 360–372.
13.
HanleyJ. R., & BakopoulouE. (2003). Irrelevant speech, articulatory suppression and phonological similarity: A test of the phonological loop model and the feature model. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 435–444.
14.
HensonR. N. A. (1998). Short-term memory for serial order: The start-end model. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 73–137.
15.
HensonR. N. ANorrisD. G.PageM. P. A., & BaddeleyA. D. (1996). Unchained memory: Error patterns rule out chaining models of immediate serial recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 80–115.
16.
JonesD. M., & MackenW. J. (1995). Phonological similarity in the irrelevant speech effect. Within- or between-stream similarity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 103–133.
17.
LarsenJ. D.BaddeleyA. D., & AndradeJ. (2000). Phonological similarity and the irrelevant speech effect: Implications for models of short-term verbal memory. Memory, 8, 145–158.
18.
LevyB. A. (1971). The role of articulation in auditory and visual short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 123–132.
19.
MackenW. J., & JonesD. M. (1995). Functional characteristics of the inner voice and inner ear: Single or double agency? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,21, 436–448.
20.
MackenW. J.MosdellN., & JonesD. M. (1999). Explaining the irrelevant-sound effect: Temporal distinctive-ness or changing state? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,25, 1–6.
21.
MurrayD. J. (1968). Articulation and acoustic confusability in short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 679–684.
22.
NairneJ. S., & KelleyM. R. (1999). Reversing the phonological similarity effect. Memory and Cognition, 27, 45–53.
23.
NeathI. (2000). Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 403–423.
24.
NorrisD.PageM. P. A., & BaddeleyA. D. (in press). Retroactive effects of irrelevant speech on serial recall from short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
25.
PageM., & NorrisD. (1998). The primacy model. A new model of immediate serial recall. Psychological Review,105, 761–781.
26.
PetersonL. R., & PetersonM. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198.
27.
SaitoS. (1994). What effect can rhythmic tapping have on the phonological similarity effect. Memory and Cognition, 22, 181–187.
28.
SalaméP., & BaddeleyA. D. (1982). Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: Implications for the structure of working memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 21, 150–164.
29.
SalaméP., & BaddeleyA. D. (1986). Phonological factors in STM: Similarity and the unattended speech effect. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24, 263–265.
30.
SurprenantA. M.NeathI., & LeCompteD. C. (1999). Irrelevant speech, phonological similarity, and presentation modality. Memory, 7, 405–420.
31.
TremblayS.MackenW. J., & JonesD. M. (2000). Elimination of the word length effect by irrelevant sound revisited. Memory and Cognition, 28, 841–846.
32.
VallarG., & BaddeleyA. D. (1982). Short-term forgetting and the articulatory loop. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34A, 53–60.
