hig.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Task demands modulate the effects of speech on text processing
Tianjin Normal University.
Tianjin Normal University.
Tianjin Normal University.
University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, Environmental Science. University of Central Lancashire.
Show others and affiliations
2020 (English)In: Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition, ISSN 0278-7393, E-ISSN 1939-1285, Vol. 46, no 10, p. 1892-1905Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Task-irrelevant background sound can disrupt performance of visually based cognitive tasks. The cross-modal breakdown of attentional selectivity in the context of reading was addressed using analyses of eye movements. Moreover, the study addressed whether task-sensitivity to distraction via background speech on reading was modulated by the cognitive demands of the focal task. Two randomly-assigned groups of native Chinese participants read the same set of Chinese experimental sentences while being exposed to meaningful speech, meaningless (foreign) speech, or silence. For one group, participants were instructed to judge whether the sentences made sense (i.e., semantic acceptability task); for another, participants were instructed to detect whether the sentences contained a noncharacter (i.e., noncharacter detection task). Results showed no significant effect across sound conditions for the noncharacter detection task. For the semantic acceptability task, however, there was a substantial disruptive effect of the meaningfulness of the speech. Compared with reading with meaningless speech or reading in silence, the meaningful speech increased numbers of fixations, regressions, regression path, and total reading times. These results suggest that the disruption of reading by background speech is jointly dependent on the nature of the speech and the task process deployed, thereby favoring an Interference-by-Process account over Interference-by-Content and Attentional Diversion accounts of distraction to reading by background sound.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
American Psychological Association , 2020. Vol. 46, no 10, p. 1892-1905
Keywords [en]
eye-movements, process-oriented, reading, auditory distraction, Auditory Stimulation, Meaningfulness, Oral Communication, Sentences, Distraction, Noise Effects, Silence
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-34140DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000861ISI: 000580444800007PubMedID: 32437187Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85087086151OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hig-34140DiVA, id: diva2:1477057
Available from: 2020-10-16 Created: 2020-10-16 Last updated: 2023-09-18Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Marsh, John E.

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Marsh, John E.
By organisation
Environmental Science
In the same journal
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition
Psychology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 17 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf