Visual distraction during word-list retrieval does not consistently disrupt memory.

Pamela J L Rae,Timothy J Perfect

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00362

Abstract

Glenberg et al. (1998) reported that episodic memory is impaired by visual distraction and argued that this effect is consistent with a trade-off between internal and external attentional focus. However, their demonstration that visual distraction impairs memory for lists used 15 consecutive word-lists, with analysis only of mid-list items, and has never been replicated. Experiment 1 (N = 37) replicated their methodology and found the same pattern of impairment for mid-list recall, but found no evidence of impairment for other items on the lists. Experiment 2 (N = 64) explored whether this pattern arises because the mid-list items are poorly encoded (by manipulating presentation rate) or because of interference. Experiment 3 (N = 36) also looked at the role of interference whilst controlling for potential item effects. Neither study replicated the pattern seen in Experiment 1, despite reliable effects of presentation rate (Experiment 2) and interference (Experiments 2 and 3). Experiment 2 found no effect of distraction for mid-list items, but distraction did increase both correct and incorrect recall of all items suggestive of a shift in willingness to report. Experiment 3 found no effects of distraction whatsoever. Thus, there is no clear evidence that distraction consistently impairs retrieval of items from lists and therefore no consistent evidence to support the embodied cognition account used to explain the original finding.

Highlights

Gaze aversion is commonly seen during social interactions (Kendon, 1967) two studies suggest that it serves more of a distraction-suppression function than a social function
The authors conclude that the benefits of gaze aversion are a result of removing the face-to-face social aspect of eye-contact, they are clear to point out that these findings are based on performance of a visual-spatial imagination task which, unlike the above two studies, does not involve memory recall
Upon inspection of the www.frontiersin.org data from the EC condition it became clear that a coding error in the program had resulted in the EC condition being not properly counterbalanced across list order, and so we dropped this condition from the analysis. This error did not affect the comparison of the dynamic visual noise (DVN) and static visual noise (SVN) conditions

Summary

Introduction

Glenberg et al (1998; Experiment 1) observed that participants were increasingly likely to avert their gaze during recall the further the target memories were back in time This suggests that as the task becomes more difficult, people spontaneously avert their gaze away from the distracting environment in order to focus attention inwardly to the task of retrieval. Doherty-Sneddon and Phelps (2005) found that regardless of whether the interview was conducted in person or by video-linkup, the frequency of gaze aversion was driven by the difficulty of the memory retrieval task, rather than the interview setting In contrast to these findings, Markson and Paterson (2009; Experiment 2) found that performance on a visual-spatial imagination task was poorer when participants maintained face-to-face eyecontact with the experimenter compared to when averting their gaze by looking at a photograph of the experimenter or closing their eyes. The authors conclude that the benefits of gaze aversion are a result of removing the face-to-face social aspect of eye-contact, they are clear to point out that these findings are based on performance of a visual-spatial imagination task which, unlike the above two studies, does not involve memory recall

Methods

Results

Conclusion