Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 10, 2026

Interaction between Phonological and Semantic Processes in Visual Word Recognition using Electrophysiology
Published on: June 29, 2021
Semantic Interference From First- and Second-Language Maskers During Speech-on-Speech Listening
Emily Allen-Rice1, Sarah Knight2, Angela de Bruin1
1Department of Psychology, University of York, United Kingdom.
Purpose:
Broad linguistic properties of masker speech (e.g., phonological and prosodic familiarity) have been shown to affect target speech transcription during speech-on-speech listening. However, it is unclear whether the semantic content of the masker impacts listening accuracy as well. If it does, it would suggest that the semantic content of the masker is co-activated with that of the target rather than being suppressed by a semantic filter mechanism. Also unclear is whether semantic interference from the masker, if found, is attenuated when the masker is in a second language (L2). These questions were addressed in two preregistered experiments.
Method:
We used a speech-on-speech task in which participants transcribed a target sentence in their first language (L1), presented simultaneously with a masker sentence that was either semantically related (semantically competing [SC]) or semantically unrelated (neutral [N]) to the target sentence and was either in L1 or L2. Transcription accuracy and intrusion errors (i.e., reports of masker words) were measured as a function of masker semantic relatedness (SC, N) and masker language (L1, L2).
Results:
In Experiment 1, we found that the semantic relationship between target and masker speech (either in L1 or L2) did not impact target transcription performance, even though overall accuracy was poorer when the masker was in L1 than L2. This suggests that the masker speech was not semantically processed, at least not to the extent that it affected transcription accuracy. However, SC maskers elicited more intrusion errors than N maskers. These findings were replicated in Experiment 2. A surprise recognition task (Experiment 2) suggested that this semantic intrusion effect likely resulted from listeners misstreaming targets and maskers, rather than from target-masker co-activation.
Conclusions:
The results show that listeners do not process the semantic content of masker speech, which provides evidence for an effective semantic filter mechanism. This contrasts with findings indicating that other broad linguistic features of a masker can interfere with target transcription.
More Related Videos
08:32Examining Online Syntactic Processing of Spoken Complex Sentences in Chinese Using Dual-Modal Interference Tasks
Published on: September 5, 2019
05:48Memorization-Based Training and Testing Paradigm for Robust Vocal Identity Recognition in Expressive Speech Using Event-Related Potentials Analysis
Published on: August 9, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Language and Cognition
Subliminal Perception
Interference: Path Lengths
Two special sources may be considered when they are in phase. This can be easily achieved by feeding the two sources from the same source. An example would be synchronizing the two speakers by feeding them with the same source, such as the sound waves produced by a tuning fork. This setup ensures that the two sources have the same frequency and are...
Perceiving Language Sounds and Structure During Infancy
Interference and Decay
Interference occurs when competing memories hinder the retrieval of particular information. It can be classified into two types: proactive and retroactive interference. Proactive...
Masking and Demasking Agents
There are many masking agents, such as cyanide, fluoride, triethanolamine, thiourea, and 2,3-bis(sulfanyl)propan-1-ol (formerly 2,3-dimercapto-1-propanol), with the masking agent chosen based on the metal...