The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Disruption of proofreading by irrelevant speech: Effects of attention, arousal or memory?
Abstract
A series of five experiments examined the effects of irrelevant speech on proofreading and memory. Four of the experiments used a proofreading task and showed that the deleterious effects of irrelevant speech: (1) depend on the speech being meaningful, (2) are only present when the burden on short‐term memory is low and (3) are manifested in a lower detection rate for non‐contextual as opposed to contextual errors. Neither the spatial location of the speech (either in terms of spatial dispersion of sources or spatial movement of a single source) nor the intensity of the speech (in a range bounded by 50 dB(A) and 70 dB(A)) had any effect on proofreading. Late selection models of attention are favoured by the results in preference to models having arousal, short‐term memory or early selection in attention as their basis. A final experiment showed serial recall for visual lists to be impaired by the presence of any speech‐like sound (including reversed speech and speech in an unfamiliar language) which suggests a set of phenomena qualitatively different from those associated with proofreading. Throughout the article the practical consequences of the findings are emphasized.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception
Navon, D. (1977) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(77)90012-3 · Cited by 4,005
The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0047707 · Cited by 3,090
Impulsivity, caffeine, and proofreading: A test of the Easterbrook hypothesis.
Anderson, K. J., & Revelle, W. (1982) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.8.4.614 · Cited by 78
Cited by
Benchmarks for models of short-term and working memory.
Oberauer, K., Lewandowsky, S., Awh, E., Brown, G. D. A., Conway, A., Cowan, N., Donkin, C., Farrell, S., Hitch, G. J., Hurlstone, M. J., et al. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000153 · Cited by 447
Office noise and employee concentration: Identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements
Banbury, S., & Berry, D. (2005) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140130412331311390 · Cited by 349
Privileged Access by Irrelevant Speech to Short-term Memory: The Role of Changing State
Jones, D., Madden, C., & Miles, C. (1992) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/14640749208401304 · Cited by 310
Self-citationWitterseh, T., Wyon, D. P., & Clausen, G. (2004) · Indoor Air · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00305.x · Cited by 227
A model predicting the effect of speech of varying intelligibility on work performance
Hongisto, V. (2005) · Indoor Air · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2005.00391.x · Cited by 171
Metadata
- Authors
- Jones, D. M., Miles, C., & Page, J.
- Venue
- Applied Cognitive Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1990-03
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 89-108
- ISSN
- 0888-4080 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0720
- OpenAlex
- W2156828026
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 21.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Disruption of proofreading by irrelevant speech: Effects of attention, arousal or memory? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/acp.2350040203
- The paper
- Jones, D. M., Miles, C., & Page, J. (1990). Disruption of proofreading by irrelevant speech: Effects of attention, arousal or memory? Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350040203
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.