hig.sePublications
System disruptions
We are currently experiencing disruptions on the search portals due to high traffic. We are working to resolve the issue, you may temporarily encounter an error message.
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
On interpretation and task selection in studies on the effects of noise on cognitive performance
University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering, Environmental psychology. Linnaeus Centre HEAD, Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Linköping University. (Miljöpsykologi)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7584-2275
2014 (English)In: Frontiers in Psychology, E-ISSN 1664-1078, Vol. 5, article id 1249Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper discusses two things researchers should consider when selecting tasks for cognitive noise studies and interpreting their findings: (a) The “process impurity” problem and (b) the propensity of sound to capture attention. Theoretical and methodological problems arise when the effects of noise on complex tasks (e.g., reading comprehension) are interpreted as reflecting an impairment of a specific cognitive process/system/skill. One reason for this is that complex tasks are, by definition, process impure (i.e., they involve several, distinct cognitive processes/systems/skills). Another reason is that sound can capture attention. When sound captures attention, the impairment to task scores is caused by an interruption, not by malfunctioning cognitive processes/systems/skills. Selecting more “process pure” tasks (e.g., the Stroop task) is not a solution to these problems. On the contrary, it introduces further problems with generalizability and representativeness. It is argued that cognitive noise researchers should employ representative noise, representative tasks (which are necessarily complex/process impure), and interpret the results on a behavioral level of analysis rather than on a cognitive level of analysis.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 5, article id 1249
Keywords [en]
noise, process impurity, cognition, behavioral level of analysis, theory, method
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-17688DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01249ISI: 000344378100001PubMedID: 25400615OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hig-17688DiVA, id: diva2:755543
Available from: 2014-10-14 Created: 2014-10-14 Last updated: 2022-02-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(244 kB)277 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 244 kBChecksum SHA-512
e03c97043dce0dded513a718a961d3df699873bc2aa8ebdb89ce8e53ee642de126bed579e0d3148d687805e2dd5fdb7f117073d13e59ffd4f91e83c07e0f089c
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records

Sörqvist, Patrik

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sörqvist, Patrik
By organisation
Environmental psychology
In the same journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Psychology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 277 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 1097 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