变化状态的无关语音会干扰视觉-语言序列记忆,但不会干扰视觉-空间序列记忆。

IF 2.2 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
John E Marsh, Mark J Hurlstone, Alexandre Marois, Linden J Ball, Stuart B Moore, François Vachon, Sabine J Schlittmeier, Jan Philipp Röer, Axel Buchner, Frederik Aust, Raoul Bell
{"title":"变化状态的无关语音会干扰视觉-语言序列记忆,但不会干扰视觉-空间序列记忆。","authors":"John E Marsh, Mark J Hurlstone, Alexandre Marois, Linden J Ball, Stuart B Moore, François Vachon, Sabine J Schlittmeier, Jan Philipp Röer, Axel Buchner, Frederik Aust, Raoul Bell","doi":"10.1037/xlm0001360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In an influential article, Jones et al. (1995) provide evidence that auditory distraction by changing relative to repetitive auditory distracters (the changing-state effect) did not differ between a visual-verbal and visual-spatial serial recall task, providing evidence for an amodal mechanism for the representation of serial order in short-term memory that transcends modalities. This finding has been highly influential for theories of short-term memory and auditory distraction. However, evidence vis-à-vis the robustness of this result is sorely lacking. Here, two high-powered replications of Jones et al.'s (1995) crucial Experiment 4 were undertaken. In the first partial replication (<i>n</i> = 64), a fully within-participants design was adopted, wherein participants undertook both the visual-verbal and visual-spatial serial recall tasks under different irrelevant sound conditions, without a retention period. The second near-identical replication (<i>n</i> = 128), incorporated a retention period and implemented the task-modality manipulation as a between-participants factor, as per the original Jones et al. (1995; Experiment 4) study. In both experiments, the changing-state effect was observed for visual-verbal serial recall but not for visual-spatial serial recall. The results are consistent with modular and interference-based accounts of distraction and challenge some aspects of functional equivalence accounts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":50194,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Changing-state irrelevant speech disrupts visual-verbal but not visual-spatial serial recall.\",\"authors\":\"John E Marsh, Mark J Hurlstone, Alexandre Marois, Linden J Ball, Stuart B Moore, François Vachon, Sabine J Schlittmeier, Jan Philipp Röer, Axel Buchner, Frederik Aust, Raoul Bell\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xlm0001360\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In an influential article, Jones et al. (1995) provide evidence that auditory distraction by changing relative to repetitive auditory distracters (the changing-state effect) did not differ between a visual-verbal and visual-spatial serial recall task, providing evidence for an amodal mechanism for the representation of serial order in short-term memory that transcends modalities. This finding has been highly influential for theories of short-term memory and auditory distraction. However, evidence vis-à-vis the robustness of this result is sorely lacking. Here, two high-powered replications of Jones et al.'s (1995) crucial Experiment 4 were undertaken. In the first partial replication (<i>n</i> = 64), a fully within-participants design was adopted, wherein participants undertook both the visual-verbal and visual-spatial serial recall tasks under different irrelevant sound conditions, without a retention period. The second near-identical replication (<i>n</i> = 128), incorporated a retention period and implemented the task-modality manipulation as a between-participants factor, as per the original Jones et al. (1995; Experiment 4) study. In both experiments, the changing-state effect was observed for visual-verbal serial recall but not for visual-spatial serial recall. The results are consistent with modular and interference-based accounts of distraction and challenge some aspects of functional equivalence accounts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001360\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001360","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一篇颇具影响力的文章中,Jones 等人(1995 年)提供了证据,证明相对于重复性听觉干扰物的变化所产生的听觉干扰(变化状态效应)在视觉-语言和视觉-空间序列回忆任务中并无差异,从而为超越模态的序列顺序在短时记忆中的表征的模态机制提供了证据。这一发现对短时记忆和听觉分心理论具有重大影响。然而,有关这一结果的稳健性的证据却非常缺乏。在此,我们对 Jones 等人(1995 年)的关键实验 4 进行了两次高功率复制。在第一个部分重复实验(n = 64)中,采用了完全的参与者内部设计,即参与者在不同的无关声音条件下进行视觉-语言和视觉-空间序列回忆任务,不设保持期。第二项几乎相同的重复实验(n = 128)则采用了保留期设计,并根据最初的 Jones 等人(1995 年;实验 4)研究,将任务-模式操纵作为参与者之间的因素。在这两项实验中,视觉-语言序列回忆都出现了变化状态效应,而视觉-空间序列回忆则没有。这些结果与分心的模块化和基于干扰的说法相一致,并对功能等效说法的某些方面提出了质疑。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Changing-state irrelevant speech disrupts visual-verbal but not visual-spatial serial recall.

In an influential article, Jones et al. (1995) provide evidence that auditory distraction by changing relative to repetitive auditory distracters (the changing-state effect) did not differ between a visual-verbal and visual-spatial serial recall task, providing evidence for an amodal mechanism for the representation of serial order in short-term memory that transcends modalities. This finding has been highly influential for theories of short-term memory and auditory distraction. However, evidence vis-à-vis the robustness of this result is sorely lacking. Here, two high-powered replications of Jones et al.'s (1995) crucial Experiment 4 were undertaken. In the first partial replication (n = 64), a fully within-participants design was adopted, wherein participants undertook both the visual-verbal and visual-spatial serial recall tasks under different irrelevant sound conditions, without a retention period. The second near-identical replication (n = 128), incorporated a retention period and implemented the task-modality manipulation as a between-participants factor, as per the original Jones et al. (1995; Experiment 4) study. In both experiments, the changing-state effect was observed for visual-verbal serial recall but not for visual-spatial serial recall. The results are consistent with modular and interference-based accounts of distraction and challenge some aspects of functional equivalence accounts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
163
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition publishes studies on perception, control of action, perceptual aspects of language processing, and related cognitive processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信