Cargando…

Differences in Auditory Distraction between Adults and Children: A Duplex-mechanism Approach

Differences in the impact of irrelevant sound on recall performance in children (aged 7–9 years old; N = 89) compared to adults (aged 18–22 years old; N = 89) were examined. Tasks that required serial rehearsal (serial and probed-order recall tasks) were contrasted with one that did not (the missing...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Joseph, Tanya N., Hughes, Robert W., Sörqvist, Patrik, Marsh, John E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Ubiquity Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6634439/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31517187
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.15
_version_ 1783435788037390336
author Joseph, Tanya N.
Hughes, Robert W.
Sörqvist, Patrik
Marsh, John E.
author_facet Joseph, Tanya N.
Hughes, Robert W.
Sörqvist, Patrik
Marsh, John E.
author_sort Joseph, Tanya N.
collection PubMed
description Differences in the impact of irrelevant sound on recall performance in children (aged 7–9 years old; N = 89) compared to adults (aged 18–22 years old; N = 89) were examined. Tasks that required serial rehearsal (serial and probed-order recall tasks) were contrasted with one that did not (the missing-item task) in the presence of irrelevant sound that was either steady-state (a repeated speech token), changing-state (two alternating speech tokens) and, for the first time with a child sample, could also contain a deviant token (a male-voice token embedded in a sequence otherwise spoken in a female voice). Participants either completed tasks in which the to-be-remembered list-length was adjusted to individual digit span or was fixed at one item greater than the average span we observed for the age-group. The disruptive effects of irrelevant sound did not vary across the two methods of determining list-length. We found that tasks encouraging serial rehearsal were especially affected by changing-state sequences for both age-groups (i.e., the changing-state effect) and there were no group differences in relation to this effect. In contrast, disruption by a deviant sound—generally assumed to be the result of attentional diversion—was evident among children in all three tasks while adults were less susceptible to this effect. This pattern of results suggests that developmental differences in distraction are due to differences in attentional control rather than serial rehearsal efficiency.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6634439
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Ubiquity Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66344392019-09-12 Differences in Auditory Distraction between Adults and Children: A Duplex-mechanism Approach Joseph, Tanya N. Hughes, Robert W. Sörqvist, Patrik Marsh, John E. J Cogn Review Article Differences in the impact of irrelevant sound on recall performance in children (aged 7–9 years old; N = 89) compared to adults (aged 18–22 years old; N = 89) were examined. Tasks that required serial rehearsal (serial and probed-order recall tasks) were contrasted with one that did not (the missing-item task) in the presence of irrelevant sound that was either steady-state (a repeated speech token), changing-state (two alternating speech tokens) and, for the first time with a child sample, could also contain a deviant token (a male-voice token embedded in a sequence otherwise spoken in a female voice). Participants either completed tasks in which the to-be-remembered list-length was adjusted to individual digit span or was fixed at one item greater than the average span we observed for the age-group. The disruptive effects of irrelevant sound did not vary across the two methods of determining list-length. We found that tasks encouraging serial rehearsal were especially affected by changing-state sequences for both age-groups (i.e., the changing-state effect) and there were no group differences in relation to this effect. In contrast, disruption by a deviant sound—generally assumed to be the result of attentional diversion—was evident among children in all three tasks while adults were less susceptible to this effect. This pattern of results suggests that developmental differences in distraction are due to differences in attentional control rather than serial rehearsal efficiency. Ubiquity Press 2018-02-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6634439/ /pubmed/31517187 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.15 Text en Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Review Article
Joseph, Tanya N.
Hughes, Robert W.
Sörqvist, Patrik
Marsh, John E.
Differences in Auditory Distraction between Adults and Children: A Duplex-mechanism Approach
title Differences in Auditory Distraction between Adults and Children: A Duplex-mechanism Approach
title_full Differences in Auditory Distraction between Adults and Children: A Duplex-mechanism Approach
title_fullStr Differences in Auditory Distraction between Adults and Children: A Duplex-mechanism Approach
title_full_unstemmed Differences in Auditory Distraction between Adults and Children: A Duplex-mechanism Approach
title_short Differences in Auditory Distraction between Adults and Children: A Duplex-mechanism Approach
title_sort differences in auditory distraction between adults and children: a duplex-mechanism approach
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6634439/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31517187
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.15
work_keys_str_mv AT josephtanyan differencesinauditorydistractionbetweenadultsandchildrenaduplexmechanismapproach
AT hughesrobertw differencesinauditorydistractionbetweenadultsandchildrenaduplexmechanismapproach
AT sorqvistpatrik differencesinauditorydistractionbetweenadultsandchildrenaduplexmechanismapproach
AT marshjohne differencesinauditorydistractionbetweenadultsandchildrenaduplexmechanismapproach