PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

455

Title *

The role of spatial location in irrelevant speech revisited: A pre-registered replicationuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Florian Kattner, Mitra Hassanzadeh, & Wolfgang EllermeierPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2023

Picture

Abstract *

<p>The goal of the present investigation is to perform a preregistered replication of Jones and Macken’s (1995b) study, which showed that the segregation of a sequence of sounds to distinct spatial locations reduced the detrimental effects of irrelevant speech on short-term memory. Thereby, it postulated an intriguing connection between the psycho-acoustical concept of spatial auditory stream segregation and the cognitive mechanism underlying the irrelevant speech effect. Specifically, it was found that spoken utterances (e.g., “V-J-X”) were less disruptive in a “stereo” condition in which each auditory event (each letter) could be allocated to a separate location (right ear, left ear, center), compared to when the sounds were played in “mono”, which does not allow for such streaming-by-location. It is important to replicate this influential study with enhanced statistical power, due to its relevance for probing the classic as well as more recent accounts of the irrelevant speech effect, but also since the results were somewhat equivocal, in that the stereo condition produced slightly more disruption compared to silence and compared to the respective steady-state conditions with a single repeated letter (“J-J-J”). Jones and Macken’s study, which has never been replicated by a different laboratory, to our knowledge, is significant both theoretically, and from an applied perspective, since it postulates a role for the spatial distribution of sound to modulate auditory distraction with relevance, for example, for the acoustic design of the workplace.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

Cognitive Psychology, working memory, irrelevant speech effect, auditory streaming

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2023-04-26 17:01:57

Recommender

Chris Chambers

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY