Do Irrelevant Sounds Impair the Maintenance of All Characteristics of Speech in Memory?
Tóm tắt
Several studies have shown that maintaining in memory some attributes of speech, such as the content or pitch of an interlocutor’s message, is markedly reduced in the presence of background sounds made of spectrotemporal variations. However, experimental paradigms showing this interference have only focused on one attribute of speech at a time, and thus differ from real-life situations in which several attributes have to be memorized and maintained simultaneously. It is possible that the interference is even greater in such a case and can occur for a broader range of background sounds. We developed a paradigm in which participants had to maintain the content, pitch and speaker size of auditorily presented speech information and used various auditory distractors to generate interference. We found that only distractors with spectrotemporal variations impaired the detection, which shows that similar interference mechanisms occur whether there are one or more speech attributes to maintain in memory. A high percentage of false alarms was observed with these distractors, suggesting that spectrotemporal variations not only weaken but also modify the information maintained in memory. Lastly, we found that participants were unaware of the interference. These results are similar to those observed in the visual modality.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Baddeley A. D. (1986) Working memory. Clarendon Press, Oxford, England
Baddeley A. D. (1992) Is working memory working? The fifteenth Barlett lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 44: 1–31
Baddeley A. D. (2000) The episodic buffer: A new component to working memory?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4: 417–423
Banbury S., Berry D. C. (1998) Disruption of office-related tasks by speech and office noise. British Journal of Psychology 89: 499–517
Colle H. A., Welsch A. (1976) Acoustic masking in primary memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6: 49–54
Crowder R. G. (1978) Mechansims of auditory backward masking in the stimulus suffix effect. Psychological Review 85: 502–524
Dehaene-Lambertz G., Pena M. (2001) Electrophysiological evidence for automatic phonetic processing in neonates. Neuroreport 12: 3155–3158
Demany L., Trost W., Serman M., Semal C. (2008) Auditory change detection: Simple sounds are not memorized better than complex sounds. Psychological Science 19: 85–91
Deutsch D. (1972) Mapping of interactions in the pitch memory store. Science 175: 1020–1022
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(5): 1406–1414
Ellis A. W. (1980) Errors in speech and short-term memory: The effects of phonemic similarity and syllable position. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19: 624–634
Gaudrain, E., Li, S., Ban, V. S., & Patterson, R. D. (2009). The role of glottal pulse rate and vocal tract length in the perception of speaker identity. In Proceedings of the 10th annual conference of the international speech communication association (Interspeech 2009). Brighton, UK.
Hu Y., Loizou P. C. (2007) A comparative intelligibility study of single-microphone noise reduction algorithms. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 122: 1777–1786
Ives D. T., Smith D. R. R., Patterson R. D. (2005) Discrimination of speaker size from syllable phrases. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118: 3816–3822
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 44: 645–669
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: 369–381
Jones D. M., Macken W. J., Nicholls A. P. (2004) The phonological store of working memory: Is it phonological and is it a store?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30(3): 656–674
Kawahara H., Irino T. (2004) Principles of speech manipulation system STRAIGHT. In: Divenyi P. (ed) Speech separation by humans and machines. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 167–179
Levin D. T. (2002) Change blindness blindness as visual metacognition. Journal of Consciousness Studies 9: 111–130
Loussouarn A., Gabriel D., Proust J. (2011) Exploring the informational sources of metaperception: The case of Change Blindness Blindness. Consciousness & Cognition 20(4): 1489–1501
Macmillan N. A., Creelman C. D. (2005) Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
Morton J. (1964) A preliminary functional model for language behaviour. International Audiology 3: 215–225
Nairne J. S. (1990) A feature model of immediate memory. Memory & Cognition 18: 251–269
Neath I. (2000) Modelling the effect of irrelevant speech on memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 7: 403–423
Page M. P. A., Norris D. (1998) The primacy model: A new model of immediate serial recall. Psychological Review 105: 761–781
Page M. P. A., Norris D. (2003) The irrelevant sound effect: What needs modelling and a tentative model. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 56A: 1289–1300
Pavani F., Turatto M. (2008) Change perception in complex auditory scenes. Perception & Psychophysics 70: 619–629
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 and 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
Sarampalis A., Kalluri S., Edwards B., Hafter E. (2009) Objective measures of listening effort: Effects of background noise and noise reduction. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 52: 1230–1240
Semal C., Demany L., Ueda K., Hallé P. A. (1996) Speech versus nonspeech in pitch memory. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100: 1132–1140
Smith D. R. R., Patterson R. D. (2005) The interaction of glottal-pulse rate and vocal-tract length in judgements of speaker size, sex, and age. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118: 3177–3186
Stern S. E., Mullennix J. W., Corneille O., Huart J. (2007) Distortions in the memory of the pitch of speech. Experimental Psychology 54: 148–160
Surprenant A. M., Neath I., LeCompte D. C. (1999) Irrelevant speech, phonological similarity, and presentation modality. Memory 7: 405–420