Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31363999›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2020

Are individual differences in auditory processing related to auditory distraction by irrelevant sound? A replication study.

Emily M Elliott, John E Marsh, Jenna Zeringue, Corey I McGill

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Emily M ElliottDepartment of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA. eelliott@lsu.edu.
John E MarshUniversity of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.
Jenna ZeringueDepartment of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA.
Corey I McGillDepartment of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA.
Louisiana State University · USUniversity of Central Lancashire · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Irrelevant sounds can be very distracting, especially when trying to recall information according to its serial order. The irrelevant sound effect (ISE) has been studied in the literature for more than 40 years, yet many questions remain. One goal that has received little attention involves the discernment of a predictive factor, or individual difference characteristic, that would help to determine the size of the ISE. The current experiments were designed to replicate and extend prior work by Macken, Phelps, and Jones (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 139-144, 2009), who demonstrated a significant predictive relationship between the size of the ISE and a type of auditory processing called global pattern matching. The authors also found a relationship between auditory processing involving deliberate recoding of sounds and serial order recall performance in silence. Across two experiments, this dissociation was not replicated. Additionally, the two types of auditory processing were not significantly correlated with each other. The lack of a clear pattern of findings replicating the Macken et al. (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 139-144, 2009) study raises several questions regarding the need for future research on the characteristics of these auditory processing tasks, and the stability of the measurement of the ISE itself.

Indexed as

IndividualityAdultAttentionAuditory PerceptionFemaleHumansMaleSerial LearningYoung AdultAuditory distractionIndividual differencesReplicationSerial recall

Identifiers

PMID31363999
PMCPMC6987135
OpenAlexW2964773997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.