A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Changing-state irrelevant speech disrupts visual-verbal but not visual-spatial serial recall. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • Jones et al. (1995) originally suggested that the impact of auditory distraction on memory tasks is consistent across different types of tasks, pointing to a universal mechanism for representing serial order in memory.
  • This study aimed to replicate the findings of Jones et al. to assess the reliability of the changing-state effect on visual-verbal and visual-spatial recall tasks, which had been previously shown to be unaffected by modality.
  • The replications found that while the changing-state effect appeared in the visual-verbal task, it did not occur in the visual-spatial task, supporting theories of distraction that emphasize modularity and interference, and raising questions about the validity of earlier amodal representations.

Article Abstract

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 ( = 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 ( = 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).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001360DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

serial recall
20
visual-spatial serial
16
visual-verbal visual-spatial
12
jones 1995
8
auditory distraction
8
short-term memory
8
retention period
8
serial
6
recall
5
changing-state irrelevant
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!