Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Interference in memory by process or content? A reply to Neath (2000)

D M Jones1, S Tremblay

  • 1School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Wales. jonesdm@cardiff.ac.uk

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
|November 18, 2000
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Evidence for the Collective Nature of Radial Flow in Pb+Pb Collisions with the ATLAS Detector.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

Long-Range Transverse-Momentum Correlations and Radial Flow in Pb-Pb Collisions at the LHC.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

Evidence for the Dimuon Decay of the Higgs Boson in pp Collisions with the ATLAS Detector.

Physical review letters·2025
Same author

Evidence for Longitudinally Polarized W Bosons in the Electroweak Production of Same-Sign W Boson Pairs in Association with Two Jets in pp Collisions at sqrt[s]=13  TeV with the ATLAS Detector.

Physical review letters·2025
Same author

Search for Quasiparticle Scattering in the Quark-Gluon Plasma with Jet Splittings in pp and Pb-Pb Collisions at sqrt[s_{NN}]=5.02  TeV.

Physical review letters·2025
Same author

First Measurement of A=4 Hypernuclei and Antihypernuclei at the LHC.

Physical review letters·2025
Same journal

Mind wandering during first- and foreign-language reading.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Lexical word processing is unaffected by rapid invisible frequency tagging in reading: Evidence from eye movements.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Anxiety modulates voluntary attentional orienting to emotional gaze cues: Eye movements for pro- and anti-saccades.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Faster key-press responses to front vowels than back vowels when matching heard vowels with represented vowels.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Testing the interleaving effect without response bias: A forced-choice reevaluation of Kornell and Bjork (2008).

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

The impact of social interaction on abstract concepts.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
See all related articles

This study examines the irrelevant sound effect, contrasting content-based and process-based interference theories. Evidence favors a process-based approach for explaining how sounds impact tasks.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Auditory Perception

Background:

  • The irrelevant sound effect (ISE) describes how background sounds can impair cognitive task performance.
  • Neath's (2000) feature model offers a content-based explanation for the ISE.
  • This model has faced critiques regarding its assumptions and empirical support.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate Neath's (2000) feature model of the irrelevant sound effect.
  • To contrast content-based versus process-based interference in auditory distraction.
  • To present evidence supporting a process-based account of the ISE.

Main Methods:

  • Literature review and theoretical analysis of existing research on the irrelevant sound effect.
  • Examination of empirical findings not addressed by Neath's feature model.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Critique of the feature model's assumptions and parsimony.

    • Main Results:

    • Several problematic features of the content-based feature model were identified.
    • Empirical evidence not previously considered challenges the feature model's basis.
    • The parsimony and scope of the feature model are questioned.

    Conclusions:

    • A process-based approach provides a more comprehensive explanation for the irrelevant sound effect.
    • This approach effectively accounts for acoustic and task-specific factors in auditory distraction.
    • The findings support a broader understanding of how both speech and nonspeech sounds interfere with cognitive tasks.