ArticlePsyCh journal2014
Individual differences in distractibility: An update and a model.
Article in PsyCh journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of working memory load on interference inhibition in table tennis athletes: the moderating role of motor expertise.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Not just heard, but judged: a multidimensional perspective on auditory attention in everyday life.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2026Review
- Anti-distraction learning: focused attention, task engagement, and flow under cognitive interference.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Neural Speech Tracking during Selective Attention: A Spatially Realistic Audiovisual Study.eNeuro · 2025Article
- A lateralized alpha-band marker of the interference of exogenous attention over endogenous attention.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- Facial mimicry interference reduces working memory accuracy for facial emotion expressions.PloS one · 2024Article
- Neurophysiological Evidence for Semantic Processing of Irrelevant Speech and Own-Name Detection in a Virtual Café.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- With No Attention Specifically Directed to It, Rhythmic Sound Does Not Automatically Facilitate Visual Task Performance.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Article
- Auditory selective attention under working memory load.Psychological research · 2021Article
- Speech perception in noise: Masking and unmasking.Journal of otology · 2021Review
- A review of decreased sound tolerance in autism: Definitions, phenomenology, and potential mechanisms.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2021Review
- The Effects of Working Memory Load on Auditory Distraction in Adults With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- Does working memory protect against auditory distraction in older adults?BMC geriatrics · 2020Article
- Paying attention to speech: The role of working memory capacity and professional experience.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020Article
- Article
- Personal Audiovisual Aptitude Influences the Interaction Between Landscape and Soundscape Appraisal.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- The effect of distraction on change detection in crowded acoustic scenes.Hearing research · 2016Article
- Autonomic Nervous System Responses During Perception of Masked Speech may Reflect Constructs other than Subjective Listening Effort.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Article
- High Working Memory Load Impairs Language Processing during a Simulated Piloting Task: An ERP and Pupillometry Study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper reviews the current literature on individual differences in susceptibility to the effects of background sound on visual-verbal task performance. A large body of evidence suggests that individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) underpin individual differences in susceptibility to auditory distraction in most tasks and contexts. Specifically, high WMC is associated with a more steadfast locus of attention (thus overruling the call for attention that background noise may evoke) and a more constrained auditory-sensory gating (i.e., less processing of the background sound). The relation between WMC and distractibility is a general framework that may also explain distractibility differences between populations that differ along variables that covary with WMC (such as age, developmental disorders, and personality traits). A neurocognitive task-engagement/distraction trade-off (TEDTOFF) model that summarizes current knowledge is outlined and directions for future research are proposed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.