Effects of speech on proofreading: Can task-engagement manipulations shield against distraction?

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 69-80

  Halin, Niklas ^a   Marsh, John E ^a,b   Haga, Andreas ^a   Holmgren, Mattias ^a   Sörqvist, Patrik ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÄVLE   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

^c LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Auditory distraction; Irrelevant speech; Proofreading; Task engagement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE; READING; SPEECH; TASK PERFORMANCE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NOISE; READING; SPEECH; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84897611334     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/xap0000002     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Babisch, W. (2003). Stress hormones in the research on cardiovascular effects of noise. Noise & Health, 5, 1-11.
2. Banbury, S., & Berry, D. C. (1997). Habituation and dishabituation to speech and office noise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 181-195.
3. Banbury, S., & Berry, D. C. (1998). Disruption of office-related tasks by speech and office noise. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 499-517.
4. Banbury, S. P., & Berry, D. C. (2005). Office noise and employee concentration: Identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics, 48, 25-37.
5. Beaman, C. P. (2004). The irrelevant sound phenomenon revisited: What role for working memory capacity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1106-1118.
6. Beaman, C. P. (2005). Auditory distraction from low-intensity noise: A review of the consequences for learning and workplace environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1041-1064.
7. Bell, R., Buchner, A., & Mund, I. (2008). Age-related differences in irrelevant-speech effects. Psychology and Aging, 23, 377-391.
8. Bell, R., Röer, J. P., Dentale, S., & Buchner, A. (2012). Habituation of the irrelevant sound effect: Evidence for an attentional theory of short-term memory disruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1542-1557.
9. Boyce, P. R. (1974). Users' assessments of a landscaped office. Journal of Architectural Research, 3, 44-62.
10. Buchner, A., Mehl, B., Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2006). Artificially induced valence of distractor words increases the effects of irrelevant speech on serial recall. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1055-1062.
11. Colle, H. A. (1980). Auditory encoding in visual short-term recall: Effects of noise intensity and spatial location. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 722-735.
12. Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail part phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 331-335.
13. Creed, A., Dennis, I., & Newstead, S. (1987). Proof-reading on VDUs. Behaviour & Information Technology, 6, 3-13.
14. Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune favors the Bold (and the Italicized): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118, 111-115.
15. Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35, 1297-1326.
16. Ellermeier, W., & Hellbrück, J. (1998). Is level irrelevant in "irrelevant speech"? Effects of loudness, signal-to-noise ratio and binaural unmasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1406-1414.
17. Emberson, L. L., Lupyan, G., Goldstein, M. H., & Spivey, M. J. (2010). Overheard cell-phone conversations: When less speech is more distracting. Psychological Science, 21, 1383-1388.
18. Engelmann, J. B., Damaraju, E., Padmala, S., & Pessoa, L. (2009). Combined effects of attention and motivation on visual task performance: Transient and sustained motivational effects. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3, 4.
19. Evans, G. W., & Johnson, D. (2000). Stress and open-office noise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 779-783.
20. Haapakangas, A., Kankkunen, E., Hongisto, V., Virjonen, P., Oliva, D., & Keskinen, E. (2011). Effects of five speech masking sounds on performance and acoustic satisfaction: Implications for open-plan offices. Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 97, 641-655.
21. Hockey, G. R. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45, 73-93.
22. Hughes, R. W., Hurlstone, M. J., Marsh, J. E., Vachon, F., & Jones, D. M. (2013). Cognitive control of auditory distraction: Impact of task difficulty, foreknowledge, and working memory capacity support duplexmechanism account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 539-553.
23. Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2005). The impact of order incongruence between a task-irrelevant auditory sequence and a task-relevant visual sequence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 316-327.
24. Hughes, R. W., Vachon, F., & Jones, D. M. (2007). Disruption of shortterm memory by changing and deviant sounds: Support for a duplexmechanism account of auditory distraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 1050-1061.
25. Jahncke, H., Hygge, S., Halin, N., Green, A.-M., & Dimberg, K. (2011). Open-plan office noise: Cognitive performance and restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 373-382.
26. Jones, D. M., Hughes, R. W., & Macken, W. J. (2010). Auditory distraction and serial memory: The avoidable and the ineluctable. Noise & Health, 12, 201-209.
27. Jones, D. M., & Macken, W. 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.
28. Jones, D. M., Madden, C., & Miles, C. (1992). Privileged access by irrelevant speech to short-term memory: The role of changing state. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 44, 645-669.
29. Jones, D. M., Marsh, J. E., & Hughes, R. W. (2012). Retrieval from memory: Vulnerable or inviolable? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 905-922.
30. Jones, D., Miles, C., & Page, J. (1990). Disruption of proofreading by irrelevant speech: Effects of attention, arousal or memory? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 89-108.
31. Kim, S.-Y., Kim, M.-S., & Chun, M. M. (2005). Concurrent working memory load can reduce distraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 102, 16524-16529.
32. Koelewijn, T., Zekveld, A. A., Festen, J. M., Rönnberg, J., & Kramer, S. E. (2012). Processing load induced by informational masking is related to linguistic abilities. International Journal of Otolaryngology, 2012, 1-11.
33. Langheim, L., Matthews, G., Warm, J. S., Reinerman, L. E., Shaw, T. H., Finomore, V. S.,. Guznov, S. (2007, July). The long pursuit: In search of predictors of individual differences in vigilance. Paper presented at the 13th Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, Giessen, Germany.
34. Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75-82.
35. Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject design. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476-490.
36. Macdonald, J. S. P., & Lavie, N. (2011). Visual perceptual load induces inattentional blindness. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 1780-1789.
37. Marsh, J. E., Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2008). Auditory distraction in semantic memory: A process-based approach. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 682-700.
38. Marsh, J. E., Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2009). Interference by process, not content, determines semantic auditory distraction. Cognition, 110, 23-38.
39. Martin, R. C., Wogalter, M. S., & Forlano, J. G. (1988). Reading comprehension in the presence of unattended speech and music. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 382-398.
40. Masson, M. E. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 679-690.
41. Mather, M., & Sutherland, M. R. (2011). Arousal-biased competition in perception and memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 114-133.
42. Matthews, G., Davies, D. R., & Lees, J. L. (1990). Arousal, extroversion, and individual-differences in resource availability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 150-168.
43. Matthews, G., Warm, J. S., Reinerman, L. E., Langheim, L. K., & Saxby, D. J. (2010). Task engagement, attention and executive control. In A. Gruszka, G. Matthews, & B. Szymura (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in cognition: Attention, memory, and executive control (pp. 205-230). New York, NY: Springer.
44. Morris, N., & Jones, D. M. (1991). Impaired transcription from VDUs in noisy environments. In E. J. Lovesey (Ed.), Contemporary ergonomics (pp. 184-189). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
45. Olsen, K. A. (2012). A smart proofreader for all natural languages: Achieving semantic understanding by majority vote. ISRN Artificial Intelligence, 2012, 1-6.
46. Oswald, C. J. P., Tremblay, S., & Jones, D. M. (2000). Disruption of comprehension by the meaning of irrelevant sound. Memory, 8, 345-350.
47. Ransdell, S. E., & Gilroy, L. (2001). The effect of background music on word processed writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 141-148.
48. Ransdell, S., Levy, C. M., & Kellogg, R. T. (2002). The structure of writing processes as revealed by secondary task demands. L-1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 2, 141-163.
49. Rees, G., Frith, C., & Lavie, N. (1997). Modulating irrelevant motion perception by varying attentional load in an unrelated task. Science, 278, 1616-1619.
50. Salamé, P., & Baddeley, A. D. (1989). Effects of background music on phonological short-term memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 41, 107-122.
51. SanMiguel, I., Corral, M.-J., & Escera, C. (2008). When loading working memory reduces distraction: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence from an auditory-visual distraction paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1131-1145.
52. Smith, A. (1991). A review of the non-auditory effects of noise on health. Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health and Organisations, 5, 49-62.
53. Smith, A. (2012). An update on noise and performance: Comment on Szalma and Hancock (2011). Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1262-1268.
54. Smith-Jackson, T., & Wogalter, M. S. (1997). Background discontinuous speech increases perceived difficulty of a language-based task. Proceedings of the Silicon Valley Ergonomics Conference & Exposition, Ergo-Con 97, 93-97. Retrieved from http://www.safetyhumanfactors.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/112SmithJacksonWogalter1997.pdf
55. Sörqvist, P. (2010a). High working memory capacity attenuates the deviation effect but not the changing-state effect: Further support for the duplex- mechanism account of auditory distraction. Memory & Cognition, 38, 651-658.
56. Sörqvist, P. (2010b). The role of working memory capacity in auditory distraction: A review. Noise & Health, 12, 217-224.
57. Sörqvist, P., Halin, N., & Hygge, S. (2010). Individual differences in susceptibility to the effects of speech on reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 67-76.
58. Sörqvist, P., Marsh, J. E., & Jahncke, H. (2010). Hemispheric asymmetries in auditory distraction. Brain and Cognition, 74, 79-87.
59. Sörqvist, P., Marsh, J. E., & Nöstl, A. (2013). High working memory capacity does not always attenuate distraction: Bayesian evidence in support of the null-hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Advance online publication.
60. Sörqvist, P., Nöstl, A., & Halin, N. (2012a). Disruption of writing processes by the semanticity of background speech. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53, 97-102.
61. Sörqvist, P., Nöstl, A., & Halin, N. (2012b). Working memory capacity modulate habituation rate: Evidence from a cross-modal auditory distraction paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 245-250.
62. Sörqvist, P., Stenfelt, S., & Rönnberg, J. (2012). Working memory capacity and visual-verbal cognitive load modulate auditory-sensory gating: Toward a unified view of attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 2147-2154.
63. Sundstrom, E., Town, J. P., Rice, R. W., Osborn, D. P., & Brill, M. (1994). Office noise, satisfaction, and performance. Environment and Behavior, 26, 195-222.
64. Szalma, J. L., & Hancock, P. A. (2011). Noise effects on human performance: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 682-707.
65. Szalma, J. L., & Hancock, P. A. (2012). What's all the noise? Differentiating dimensions of acoustic stress and the limits to meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1269-1273.
66. Venetjoki, N., Kaarlela-Toumaala, A., Keskinen, E., & Hongisto, V. (2006). The effect of speech and speech intelligibility on task performance. Ergonomics, 49, 1068-1091.
67. Weinstein, N. D. (1974). Effects of noise on intellectual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 548-554.
68. Weinstein, N. D. (1977). Noise and intellectual performance: A confirmation and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 104-107.
69. Wilkinson, R. T., & Robinshaw, H. M. (1987). Proof-reading: VDU and paper text compared for speed, accuracy and fatigue. Behaviour & Information Technology, 6, 125-133.
70. Young, H., & Berry, G. (1979). The impact of environment on the productivity attitudes of intellectually challenged office workers. Human Factors, 21, 399-407.