Working memory capacity is equally unrelated to auditory distraction by changing-state and deviant sounds
Working memory capacity is equally unrelated to auditory distraction by changing-state and deviant sounds
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jml.2017.05.005
复制
发表时间：
2017-10-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Bell, Raoul
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Koerner, Ulrike;Roeer, Jan P.;Bell, Raoul
听觉干扰机制认为，听觉干扰有两种根本不同的类型。一系列变化的听觉干扰物（改变状态效应）的干扰归因于对要被忽略的信息的强制性处理，这会自动干扰短期记忆。与此相反，由一个序列与一个单一的偏差听觉干扰（偏差效应）的中断，归因于注意捕获。这个帐户预测，工作记忆容量（WMC）是差异相关的变化状态效应和偏差效应：变化状态效应被认为是免疫的认知控制，因此，是无关的WMC。偏差效应，相反，被认为是开放的认知控制，因此，WMC负相关。尽管与以前的研究相比有一些方法上的改进（大样本量，WMC的复合测量，以及相关性的直接统计比较），但没有证据表明改变状态效应和偏差效应之间存在分离。WMC是无关的变化状态效应的大小和偏差效应的大小，无论是简单的刺激（字母，实验1和3）或复杂的刺激（单词和句子，实验2）被用作听觉干扰。此外，交叉实验分析与总样本N = 601参与者否定的想法，这两种类型的听觉分心表现出与WMC的差异关系。模型的听觉分心的影响进行了讨论。(C)2017爱思唯尔公司All rights reserved.
The duplex-mechanism account states that there are two fundamentally different types of auditory distraction. The disruption by a sequence of changing auditory distractors (the changing-state effect) is attributed to the obligatory processing of the to-be-ignored information, which automatically interferes with short-term memory. The disruption by a sequence with a single deviant auditory distractor (the deviation effect), in contrast, is attributed to attentional capture. This account predicts that working memory capacity (WMC) is differentially related to the changing-state effect and to the deviation effect: The changing-state effect is assumed to be immune to cognitive control and, thus, to be unrelated to WMC. The deviation effect, in contrast, is assumed to be open to cognitive control and, thus, to be negatively related to WMC. Despite several methodological improvements over previous studies (large sample sizes, a composite measure of WMC, and a direct statistical comparison of the correlations), there was no evidence of a dissociation between the changing-state effect and the deviation effect. WMC was unrelated both to the size of the changing-state effect and to the size of the deviation effect, irrespective of whether simple stimuli (letters, Experiments 1 and 3) or complex stimuli (words and sentences, Experiment 2) were used as auditory distractors. Furthermore, a cross-experimental analysis with a total sample of N = 601 participants disconfirmed the idea that both types of auditory distraction show a differential relationship with WMC. Implications for models of auditory distraction are discussed. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.