We welcome the discussion prompted by our data (Larsen & Baddeley, this issue 2003). In the case of Macken and Jones (this issue 2003), we note that much of it concerns inconsistency between their findings and those of ourselves and/or others, emphasizing the need for further replication. We welcome the emphasis that Neath, Farley, and Surprenant (this issue 2003) place on the importance of strategy. This is likely to be an issue of increasing importance in the field, although we have doubts about the correlational approach adopted by Neath et al. Finally, we welcome the demonstration by Page and Norris (this issue 2003) that their primacy model is able to give a computationally explicit account of the irrelevant speech effect within a broad phonological loop framework.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaddeleyA. D. (2000). The phonological loop and the irrelevant speech effect: Some comments on Neath. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 544–549.
2.
BaddeleyA. D.ChincottaD. M., & AdlamA. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: Evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 641–657.
3.
BaddeleyA. D.GathercoleS. E., & PapagnoC., (1998) The phonological loop as a language learning device, Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.
4.
ConradR. (1964). Acoustic confusions in immediate memory. British Journal of Psychology, 55, 75–84.
5.
ConradR., & HullA. J.(1964). Information, acoustic confusion and memory span. British Journal of Psychology, 55, 429–432.
6.
EllisA. W. (1980). Errors in speech and short-term memory: The effects of phonomic similarity and syllable position. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 624–634.
7.
GathercoleS.E.PickeringS.HallM., & PeakerS. (2001) Dissociable lexical and phonological influences on serial recognition and serial recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 1–30.
8.
GisselgardJ.PeterssonK. M.BaddeleyA. D., & IngvarM. (in press) The irrelevant speech effect: A PET study. Neuropsychologia.
9.
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.
10.
HanleyJ.R., & BroadbentC. (1987) The effect of unattended speech on serial recall following auditory presentation. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 287–297.
11.
JonesD. M.(1993). Objects, streams and threads of auditory attention. In BaddeleyA. & WeiskrantzL. (Eds.), Attention: Selection, awareness and control (pp. 87–104). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
12.
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, 103–115.
13.
LarsenJ., & BaddeleyA. D. (2003). Disruption of verbal STM by irrelevant speech, articulatory suppression and manual tapping: Do they have a common source? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 1249–1268.
14.
LarsenJ. D.BaddeleyA. D., & AndradeJ. (2000). Phonological similarity and irrelevant speech: Implications for models of short-term verbal memory. Memory, 8, 145–157.
15.
MackenW.J., & JonesD. M. (1995). Functional characteristics of the inner voice and the inner ear: Single or double agency? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,21, 436–448.
16.
MackenW. J., & JonesD. M. (2003). Reification of phonological storage. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 1279–1288.
17.
MeiserT., & KlauerK. C. (1999). Working memory and changing-state hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 1272–1299.
18.
MurrayD. J. (1968). Articulation and acoustic confusability in short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 679–684.
19.
NeathI. (2000). Modelling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 403–423.
20.
NeathI.FarleyL. A., & SurprenantA. M. (2003). Directly assessing the relationship between irrelevant speech and articulatory suppression. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 1269–1278.
21.
PageM. P. A., & NorrisD. G. (2003). The irrelevant sound effect: What needs modeling, and a tentative model. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 1289–1300.
22.
PaulesuE.FrithC. D., & FrackowiakR. S. J. (1993). The neural correlates of the verbal component of working memory. Nature, 362, 342–345.
23.
PoultonE. C. (1989). Bias in quantifying judgements. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
24.
SaitoS., & BaddeleyA. D. (2003). Irrelevant sound disrupts speech production: Exploring the relationship between short-term memory and experimentally induced slips of the tongue. Manuscript submitted for publication.
25.
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 Behavior, 21, 150–164.
26.
SalaméP., & BaddeleyA. D. (1986). Phonological factors in STM: Similarity and the unattended speech effect. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24, 263–265.
27.
SmithE. E., & JonidesJ. (1996). Working memoryin humans: Neuropsychological evidence. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 1009–1020). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
TremblayS.MackenW. J., & JonesD. M. (2001). The impact of broadband noise on serial memory: Changes in band-pass frequency increase disruption. Memory, 9, 323–331.
29.
WelfordA. T.BrownR. A., & GabbJ. E. (1950). Two experiments on fatigue as affecting skilled performance in civilian air-crew. British Journal of Psychology, 40, 195–211.
