The effects of background sounds on cognitive performance are of great relevance to the study of efficiency in work environments such as offices and flight deck, where the presence of extraneous auditory stimuli is common. A number of laboratory studies have shown large and consistent disruption of performance, despite participants' consciously trying to ignore the task-irrelevant sounds. This breakdown of selective attention suggests that unattended sound is processed to some extent and that this process interferes wwith processing task-relevant information. The features of the sounds and those of the tasks, which augment and reduce the degree of disruption, as well as the practical implications of those findings, are discussed in this review.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaddeleyA. D.SalameAP. (1986). The unattended speech effect: Perception or memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory and cognition, 12, 525–529.
2.
BanburyS.BerryD. C. (1997). Habituation and dishabituation to speech and office noise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 181–195.
3.
BanburyS.BerryD. C. (1998). The disruption of speech and office-related tasks by speech and office noise. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 499–517.
4.
BeamanC. P.JonesD. M. (1997). The role of serial order in the irrelevant speech effect: Tests of the changing state hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 459–471.
5.
BeamanC. P.JonesD. M. (1998). Irrelevant sound disrupts order information in free as in serial recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 51A, 615–636.
6.
BregmanA. S. (1990). Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
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: Human Experimental Psychology, 49A, 919–939.
8.
BroadbentD. E. (1979). Human performance and noise. In HarrisC. M. (Ed.), Handbook of noise control (pp. 17.1–17.20). New York: McGraw Hill.
9.
BuchnerA.IrmenL.ErdfelderE. (1996). On the irrelevance of semantic information for the ‘irrelevant speech’ effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 49A, 765–779.
10.
ColleH. A. (1980). Auditory encoding in visual short-term recall: Effects of noise intensity and spatial location. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 722–735.
11.
ColleH. A.WelshA. (1976). Acoustic masking in primary memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 17–31.
12.
CowanN.BarronA. (1987). Cross-modal, auditory-visual stroop interference and possible implications for speech memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 393–401.
13.
EllermeierW.HellbrückJ. (1998). Is level irrelevant in ‘irrelevant speech’? Effects of loudness, signal-to-noise ratio, and binaural masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1406–1414.
14.
EllermeierW.ZimmerK. (1997). Individual differences in susceptibility to the ‘irrelevant speech’ effect. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 2191–2199.
15.
HanleyJ. R.BroadbentC. (1987). The effect of unattended speech on serial recall following auditory presentation. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 287–297.
16.
HellbrückJ.KuwanoS.NambaS. (1996). Irrelevant background speech and human performance: Is there long-term habituation?Journal of the Acoustical Society of Japan, 17, 239–247.
17.
JonesD. M.AlfordD.BridgesA.TremblayS.MackenW. J. (1999). Organizational factors in selective attention: The interplay of acoustic distinctiveness and auditory streaming in the irrelevant sound effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 464–473.
18.
JonesD. M.FarrandP.StuartG.MorrisN. (1995). Functional equivalence of verbal and spatial information in serial short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 1008–1018.
19.
JonesD. M.MackenW. J. (1993). Irrelevant Tones Produce an Irrelevant Speech Effect: Implications for Phonological Coding in Working Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 369–381.
20.
JonesD. M.MackenW. J. (1995a). Organizational factors in the effect of irrelevant speech: The role of spatial location and timing. Memory & Cognition, 23, 192–200.
21.
JonesD. M.MackenW. J. (1995b). Phonological Similarity in the Irrelevant Speech Effect: Within- or Between-Stream Similarity?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 103–115.
22.
JonesD. M.MackenW. J.MosdellN. (1997). The role of habituation in the disruption of recall performance by irrelevant sound. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 549–564.
23.
JonesD. M.MackenW. J.MurrayA. C. (1993). Disruption of visual short-term memory by changing-state auditory stimuli: The role of segmentation. Memory & Cognition, 21, 318–328.
24.
JonesD. M.MaddenC.MilesC. (1992). Privileged acces by irrelevant speech to short-term memory: The role of changing state. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 645–669.
25.
JonesD. M.MilesC.PageJ. (1990). Disruption of proof-reading by irrelevant speech: Effects of attention, arousal or memory?Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 89–108.
26.
LeCompteD. C. (1994). Extending the irrelevant speech effect beyond serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 1396–1408.
27.
LeCompteD. C.NeelyC. B.WilsonJ. R. (1997). Irrelevant speech and irrelevant tones: The relative importance of speech to the irrelevant speech effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 472–483.
28.
LeCompteD. C.ShaibeD. M. (1997). On the irrelevance of phonological similarity to the irrelevant speech effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 50A, 100–118.
29.
MartinR. C.WogalterM. S.ForlanoJ. G. (1988). Reading comprehension in the presence of unattended speech and music. Journal of memory and language, 27, 382–398.
30.
Martin-LoechesM.SchweinbergerS. R.SommerW. (1997). The phonological loop model of working memory: An ERP study of irrelevant speech and phonological similarity effects. Memory & Cognition, 25, 471–485.
31.
NittonoH. (1997). Background instrumental music and serial recall. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 1307–1313.
32.
PoirierM.Saint-AubinJ. (1995). Memory for related and unrelated words: Further evidence on the influence of semantic factors in immediate serial recall. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 384–404.
33.
SalaméP.BaddeleyA. D. (1989). Effects of background music on phonological short-term memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 107–122.
34.
SalaméP.BaddeleyA. D. (1990). The effects of irrelevant speech on immediate free recall. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 540–542.
35.
TremblayS.JonesD. M. (1999). Change of intensity fails to produce an irrelevant sound effect: Implications for the representation of unattended sound. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, in press.
36.
TremblayS.JonesD. M. (1998). Role of habituation in the irrelevant sound effect: Evidence from the effects of token set size and rate of transition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 659–671.
37.
Van NoordenL. P. A. S. (1975). Temporal coherence in the perception of tone sequences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology.
