Abstract
Typically, serial recall performance can be disrupted by the presence of an irrelevant stream of background auditory stimulation, but only if the background stream changes over time (the auditory changing-state effect). It was hypothesized that segmentation of the auditory stream is necessary for changing state to be signified. In Experiment 1, continuous random pitch glides failed to disrupt serial recall, but glides interrupted regularly by silence brought about the usual auditory changing-state effect. In Experiment 2, a physically continuous stream of synthesized vowel sounds was found to have disruptive effects. In Experiment 3, the technique of auditory induction showed that preattentive organization rather than critical features of the sound could account for the disruption by glides. With pitch glides, silence plays a preeminent role in the temporal segmentation of the sound stream, but speech contains corr-elated-time-varying changes in frequency and amplitude that make silent intervals superfluous.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, J. R. (1983).The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bregman, A. S. (1990).Auditory scene analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958).Perception and communication. Oxford: Pergamon.
Cutler, A. (1990). Exploiting prosodic probabilities in speech segmentation. In A. T. M. Altmann (Ed.),Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspecrives (pp. 105–201). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dannenbring, G. L. (1976). Perceived auditory continuity with alternately rising and falling frequency transitions.Canadian Journal of Psychology,30, 99–114.
Frankinh, C. R. (1985). Modality-specific grouping effects in shortterm memory.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 200–209.
Handel, S. (1989).Listening. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Holmes, J. (1985). A parallel-formant synthesiser for machine voice output. In F. Fallside & W. A. Woods (Eds.),Computer speech processing (pp. 163–187). London: Prentice-Hall.
Holmes, J. (1986).Syncon: A synthesis by rule software packagefor convenient interactive control of the 1Sf speech synthesiser using a BBC microcomputer [Computer program]. Available from J. Holmes, 19 Maylands Drive, Middlesex UB8 1BH, England.
Holmes, J., Mattingly, I. G., &Shearme, J. N. (1964). Speech synthesis by rule.Language & Speech,7, 127–143.
Houtgast, T. (1972). Psychophysical evidence for lateral inhibition in hearing.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,51, 1885–1894.
Huggins, A. W. F. (1964). Distortion of the temporal pattern of speech: Interruption and alternation.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,36, 1055–1064.
Jones, D. M. (in press). Objects, streams and threads of auditory attention. In A. D. Baddeley & L. Weiskrantz (Eds.),Attention: Selection, awareness and control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jones, D. M., &Broadrent, D. E. (1991). Human performance and noise. In C. M. Harris (Ed.),Handbook of acoustical measurements and noise control (pp. 24.1–24.24). New York: McGraw-Hill.
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, & Cognition,19, 1–13.
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,44A, 645–669.
Jones, D. M., Miles, C., &Page, J. (1990). Disruption of proof-reading by irrelevant speech: Effects of attention, arousal or memory?Applied Cognitive Psychology,4, 89–108.
Jones, D. M., &Morris, N. (1992). Irrelevant speech and cognition. In O. M. Jones & A. P. Smith (Eds.),Handbook of human performance (pp. 29–53). London: Academic Press.
Jones, D. M., & Morris, N. (in press). Irrelevant speech and serial recall: Implications for theories of attention and working memory.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.
Jones, M. R. (1976). Time, our lost dimension: Toward a new theory of perception, attention and memory.Psychological Review,83, 323–355.
Kahneman, D., &Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.),Varieties of attention (pp. 29–61). London: Academic Press.
Keller, E. (1990).Signalyze: Signal analysis for speech and music. Seattle: InfoSignal Inc.
Lieberman, P. (1984).The biology and evolution of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Marr, D. (1976). Early processing of visual information.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B,275, 483–524.
Miles, C., &Jones, D. M. (1989). The fallacy of the cross-modal Stroop effect: A rejoinder to Cowan.Perception & Psychophysics,45, 82–84.
Miles, C., Jones, D. M., &Madden, C. (1991). Locus of the irrelevant speech effect in short-term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 578–584.
Miles, C., Madden, C., &Jones, D. M. (1989). Cross-modal, auditory-visual Stroop interference: A reply to Cowan and Barton.Perception & Psychophysics,45, 77–81.
Morris, N., &Jones, D. M. (l990a). Habituation to irrelevant speech: Effects on a visual short-term memory task.Perception & Psychophysics,47, 291–297.
Morris, N., &Jones, D. M. (l990b). Memory updating and working memory: The role of the central executive.British Journal of Psychology,81, 111–121.
Morris, N., & Jones, D. M. (1992).Multiple resources in verbal shortterm memory. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Morris, N., Quayle, A., &Jones, D. M. (1987). Memory disruption by background speech and singing. In E. Megaw (Ed.),Contemporary ergonomics (pp. 494–499). London: Taylor and Francis.
Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects in delayed free recall and recognition: Visual is better than auditory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41A, 455–470.
Pisoni, D. B., &Luce, P. A. (1987). Acoustic-phonetic representations in word recognition.Cognition,25, 21–52.
Pitt, M. A., &Samuel, A. G. (1990). Attentional allocation during speech perception: How fine is the focus?Journal of Memory & Language,29, 611–632.
Rumelhart, D. (1991).Connectionist concepts of learning, memory and generalization. Paper presented at the International Conference on Memory, Lancaster University.
Salamé, P., &Baddeley, A. D. (1982). Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: Implications for the structure of working memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 150–164.
Salamé, P., &Baddeley, A. D. (1989). Effects of background music on phonological short-term memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41A, 107–122.
Salamé, P., &Baddeley, A. D. (1990). The effects of irrelevant speech on immediate free recall.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,28, 540–542.
Samuel, A. G. (1991). Perceptual degradation due to signal alternation: Implications for auditory pattern processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 392–403.
Samuel, A. G., &Tartter, V. C. (1986). Acoustic-phonetic issues in speech perception.Annual Review of Anthropology,15, 247–273.
Seamon, J. G., &Chumbley, J. I. (1977). Retrieval processes for serial order information.Memory & Cognition,5, 709–715.
Thackray, R. I., &Jones, K. N. (1971). Level of arousal during Stroop performance: Effects of speed stress and “distraction.”Psychonomic Science,23, 133–135.
Thackray, R. I., Jones, K. N., &Touchstone, R. M. (1972). The color-word interference test and its relation to performance impairment under auditory distraction.Psychonomic Science,28, 225–227.
Walsh, M. A., &Diehl, R. L. (1991). Formant transition duration and amplitude rise time as cues to the stop/glide distinction.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,43A, 603–620.
Warren, R. M. (1982).Auditory perception: A new synthesis. New York: Pergamon.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, D.M., Macken, W.J. & Murray, A.C. Disruption of visual short-term memory by changing-state auditory stimuli: The role of segmentation. Mem Cogn 21, 318–328 (1993). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208264
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208264