ReviewCognitive processing2026
The mechanism of the irrelevant speech effect in reading: a systematic review and three-level meta-analysis.
Review in Cognitive processing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Readers are frequently exposed to background speech while reading, which slows reading speed and reduces comprehension accuracy-a phenomenon known as the irrelevant speech effect (ISE). The Semantic Interference Hypothesis proposes that only intelligible speech disrupts reading, whereas the Phonological Interference Hypothesis predicts that both intelligible and unintelligible speech cause disruption. However, empirical findings have not provided unequivocal support for either account. The present study addressed this issue by using a three-level meta-analysis. After a systematic search and screening, 30 studies were included, yielding 606 effect sizes. The results showed that, compared to the silence condition, intelligible speech slowed down the whole reading processing and prolonged lexical processing. Unintelligible speech also slowed down reading and affected post-lexical stages of lexical processing, as reflected in longer go-past time and total fixation duration. Importantly, intelligible speech exerted a stronger disruptive effect than unintelligible speech, by increasing reading time and delaying lexical processing across all stages. These results suggest that both intelligible and unintelligible speech interfere with reading, but intelligible speech causes greater disruption than unintelligible speech. The Phonological and the Semantic Interference Hypotheses only provide partial accounts for these findings, whereas the Process Interference Hypothesis offers a more comprehensive explanation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42446793What 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.