Effects Of Background Speech Research Articles

The effect of background speech on attentive sound processing: A pupil dilation study

Listening to task-irrelevant speech while performing a cognitive task can involuntarily deviate our attention and lead to decreases in performance. One explanation for the impairing effect of irrelevant speech is that semantic processing can consume attentional resources. In the present study, we tested this assumption by measuring performance in a non-linguistic attentional task while participants were exposed to meaningful (native) and non-meaningful (foreign) speech. Moreover, based on the tight relation between pupillometry and attentional processes, we also registered changes in pupil diameter size to quantify the effect of meaningfulness upon attentional allocation. To these aims, we recruited 41 native German speakers who had neither received formal instruction in French nor had extensive informal contact with this language. The focal task consisted of an auditory oddball task. Participants performed a duration discrimination task containing frequently repeated standard sounds and rarely presented deviant sounds while a story was read in German or (non-meaningful) French in the background. Our results revealed that, whereas effects of language meaningfulness on attention were not detectable at the behavioural level, participants' pupil dilated more in response to the sounds of the auditory task when background speech was played in non-meaningful French compared to German, independent of sound type. In line with the initial hypothesis, this suggested that semantic processing of the native language required attentional resources, which lead to fewer resources devoted to the processing of the sounds of the focal task. Our results highlight the potential of the pupil dilation response for the investigation of subtle cognitive processes that might not surface when only behaviour is measured.

The effects of background music on neural responses during reading comprehension

The effects of background speech or noise on visually based cognitive tasks has been widely investigated; however, little is known about how the brain works during such cognitive tasks when music, having a powerful function of evoking emotions, is used as the background sound. The present study used event-related potentials to examine the effects of background music on neural responses during reading comprehension and their modulation by musical arousal. Thirty-nine postgraduates judged the correctness of sentences about world knowledge without or with background music (high-arousal music and low-arousal music). The participants’ arousal levels were reported during the experiment. The results showed that the N400 effect, elicited by world knowledge violations versus correct controls, was significantly smaller for silence than those for high- and low-arousal music backgrounds, with no significant difference between the two musical backgrounds. This outcome might have occurred because the arousal levels of the participants were not affected by the high- and low-arousal music throughout the experiment. These findings suggest that background music affects neural responses during reading comprehension by increasing the difficulty of semantic integration, and thus extend the irrelevant sound effect to suggest that the neural processing of visually based cognitive tasks can also be affected by music.

Auditory distraction in open-plan study environments: Effects of background speech and reverberation time on a collaboration task

Previous research has shown that semantic-based tasks are negatively influenced by semantic aspects in background speech. Collaboration is an important task in open-plan study environments and is a semantic task which might be disrupted by background speech. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the influence of irrelevant background speech on student-collaboration.Participants worked in pairs to solve spot-the-difference puzzles, by using the 'DiapixUK' collaboration task, while they were exposed to different background sound scenarios. The composed sound scenarios varied in semantic content (mother tongue and foreign language background speech) and reverberation time (short vs long), the latter affecting speech intelligibility.Although a longer reverberation time decreases the intelligibility of background speech and a foreign language decreases meaningfulness of speech, no significant changes in performance were found. On the other hand, the data show an increased perceived disturbance for a longer reverberation time, which we interpret as an increased difficulty of interpersonal communication in the collaboration task due to the increased level of the background speech. The quiet reference condition was the most preferred sound condition which is in line with both the effect of a low background sound level and the absence of semantic interference.

Background Speech Effects on Sentence Processing during Reading: An Eye Movement Study.

Effects of background speech on reading were examined by playing aloud different types of background speech, while participants read long, syntactically complex and less complex sentences embedded in text. Readers’ eye movement patterns were used to study online sentence comprehension. Effects of background speech were primarily seen in rereading time. In Experiment 1, foreign-language background speech did not disrupt sentence processing. Experiment 2 demonstrated robust disruption in reading as a result of semantically and syntactically anomalous scrambled background speech preserving normal sentence-like intonation. Scrambled speech that was constructed from the text to-be read did not disrupt reading more than scrambled speech constructed from a different, semantically unrelated text. Experiment 3 showed that scrambled speech exacerbated the syntactic complexity effect more than coherent background speech, which also interfered with reading. Experiment 4 demonstrated that both semantically and syntactically anomalous speech produced no more disruption in reading than semantically anomalous but syntactically correct background speech. The pattern of results is best explained by a semantic account that stresses the importance of similarity in semantic processing, but not similarity in semantic content, between the reading task and background speech.

Office noise: Can headphones and masking sound attenuate distraction by background speech?

Background speech is one of the most disturbing noise sources at shared workplaces in terms of both annoyance and performance-related disruption. Therefore, it is important to identify techniques that can efficiently protect performance against distraction. It is also important that the techniques are perceived as satisfactory and are subjectively evaluated as effective in their capacity to reduce distraction. The aim of the current study was to compare three methods of attenuating distraction from background speech: masking a background voice with nature sound through headphones, masking a background voice with other voices through headphones and merely wearing headphones (without masking) as a way to attenuate the background sound. Quiet was deployed as a baseline condition. Thirty students participated in an experiment employing a repeated measures design. Performance (serial short-term memory) was impaired by background speech (1 voice), but this impairment was attenuated when the speech was masked - and in particular when it was masked by nature sound. Furthermore, perceived workload was lowest in the quiet condition and significantly higher in all other sound conditions. Notably, the headphones tested as a sound-attenuating device (i.e. without masking) did not protect against the effects of background speech on performance and subjective work load. Nature sound was the only masking condition that worked as a protector of performance, at least in the context of the serial recall task. However, despite the attenuation of distraction by nature sound, perceived workload was still high - suggesting that it is difficult to find a masker that is both effective and perceived as satisfactory.

Boundaries of semantic distraction: dominance and lexicality act at retrieval.

Three experiments investigated memory for semantic information with the goal of determining boundary conditions for the manifestation of semantic auditory distraction. Irrelevant speech disrupted the free recall of semantic category- exemplars to an equal degree regardless of whether the speech coincided with presentation or test phases of the task (Experiment 1), and this occurred regardless of whether it comprised random words or coherent sentences (Experiment 2). The effects of background speech were greater when the irrelevant speech was semantically related to the to-be-remembered material, but only when the irrelevant words were high in output dominance (Experiment 3). The implications of these findings in relation to the processing of task material and the processing of background speech are discussed.

The impact of background speech varying in intelligibility: Effects on cognitive performance and perceived disturbance

Noise abatement in office environments often focuses on the reduction of background speech intelligibility and noise level, as attainable with frequency-specific insulation. However, only limited empirical evidence exists regarding the effects of reducing speech intelligibility on cognitive performance and subjectively perceived disturbance. Three experiments tested the impact of low background speech (35 dB(A)) of both good and poor intelligibility, in comparison to silence and highly intelligible speech not lowered in level (55 dB(A)). The disturbance impact of the latter speech condition on verbal short-term memory (n = 20) and mental arithmetic (n = 24) was significantly reduced during soft and poorly intelligible speech, but not during soft and highly intelligible speech. No effect of background speech on verbal-logical reasoning performance (n = 28) was found. Subjective disturbance ratings, however, were consistent over all three experiments with, for example, soft and poorly intelligible speech rated as the least disturbing speech condition but still disturbing in comparison to silence. It is concluded, therefore, that a combination of objective performance tests and subjective ratings is desirable for the comprehensive evaluation of acoustic office environments and their alterations.

Open-Plan Office Designs: An Examination of Unattended Speech, Performance, and Focused Attention

This study modeled the open-plan office environment by introducing background speech (a common workplace noise) at moderate decibel levels and measuring performance on a computer editing task. Also assessed was whether focussed attention moderates the effects of background speech on task performance. Editing accuracy was significantly higher under quiet compared to continuous background speech conditions. Results also showed that participants scoring higher on focused attention using the Tellegen Absorption Scale (Tellegen & Atkinsson, 1974) were more accurate detectors of certain types of errors and edited more lines of text than low absorbers. Implications for open-plan office design, selection of personnel, technology deployment in non-optimal environments, and the importance of focused attention are discussed.