Interference in memory by process or content? A reply to Neath (2000)
The approach to the irrelevant sound effect by Neath (2000) is discussed in terms of the contrast between content-based and process-based interference. Four themes are highlighted: First, problematic features of the feature model are highlighted; second, results not considered by Neath are presented...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Psychonomic bulletin & review 2000-09, Vol.7 (3), p.550-558 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 558 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 550 |
| container_title | Psychonomic bulletin & review |
| container_volume | 7 |
| creator | Jones, D M Tremblay, S |
| description | The approach to the irrelevant sound effect by Neath (2000) is discussed in terms of the contrast between content-based and process-based interference. Four themes are highlighted: First, problematic features of the feature model are highlighted; second, results not considered by Neath are presented; third, empirical underpinnings of the feature model not related to the irrelevant-sound effect are questioned; last, the parsimony of the feature model is questioned. The balance of the evidence seems to be in favor of a process-based approach, on the grounds that it provides a comprehensive account of acoustic and task-based factors within the irrelevant sound effect, for both speech and nonspeech sound. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.3758/BF03214370 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85535921</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>85535921</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-e74424739c20d1cec3d2593e3e9cdb72488fd2a3f7288279c10dc9721a354fd53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQQIMotlYv_gDJSVRYTTLJJjlJLVYLRS96XrbJLFb2oybbw_57Iy306Gnm8HgzPEIuObsHrczD05yB4BI0OyJjroBnCgQ7TjvLbWbByBE5i_GbMaZym5-SEefMCJPLMXletD2GCgO2Dum6pQ02XRjoaqCb0DmMkXaBui5Rbf9IpzTgph5o39E3LPsveiOS9facnFRlHfFiPyfkc_78MXvNlu8vi9l0mTlQrM9QSymkBusE89yhAy-UBQS0zq-0kMZUXpRQaWGM0NZx5p3VgpegZOUVTMj1zpt--9li7ItmHR3Wddlit42FUQqUFfxfMN0SLDc6gXc70IUuxoBVsQnrpgxDwVnxV7c41E3w1d66XTXoD-g-J_wCdV1xOQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72420687</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Interference in memory by process or content? A reply to Neath (2000)</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Jones, D M ; Tremblay, S</creator><creatorcontrib>Jones, D M ; Tremblay, S</creatorcontrib><description>The approach to the irrelevant sound effect by Neath (2000) is discussed in terms of the contrast between content-based and process-based interference. Four themes are highlighted: First, problematic features of the feature model are highlighted; second, results not considered by Neath are presented; third, empirical underpinnings of the feature model not related to the irrelevant-sound effect are questioned; last, the parsimony of the feature model is questioned. The balance of the evidence seems to be in favor of a process-based approach, on the grounds that it provides a comprehensive account of acoustic and task-based factors within the irrelevant sound effect, for both speech and nonspeech sound.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1069-9384</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-5320</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3758/BF03214370</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11082864</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PBUREN</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Acoustic Stimulation ; Cues ; Humans ; Inhibition (Psychology) ; Memory ; Mental Recall ; Models, Psychological ; Serial Learning ; Speech</subject><ispartof>Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2000-09, Vol.7 (3), p.550-558</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-e74424739c20d1cec3d2593e3e9cdb72488fd2a3f7288279c10dc9721a354fd53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-e74424739c20d1cec3d2593e3e9cdb72488fd2a3f7288279c10dc9721a354fd53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11082864$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jones, D M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tremblay, S</creatorcontrib><title>Interference in memory by process or content? A reply to Neath (2000)</title><title>Psychonomic bulletin & review</title><addtitle>Psychon Bull Rev</addtitle><description>The approach to the irrelevant sound effect by Neath (2000) is discussed in terms of the contrast between content-based and process-based interference. Four themes are highlighted: First, problematic features of the feature model are highlighted; second, results not considered by Neath are presented; third, empirical underpinnings of the feature model not related to the irrelevant-sound effect are questioned; last, the parsimony of the feature model is questioned. The balance of the evidence seems to be in favor of a process-based approach, on the grounds that it provides a comprehensive account of acoustic and task-based factors within the irrelevant sound effect, for both speech and nonspeech sound.</description><subject>Acoustic Stimulation</subject><subject>Cues</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inhibition (Psychology)</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Mental Recall</subject><subject>Models, Psychological</subject><subject>Serial Learning</subject><subject>Speech</subject><issn>1069-9384</issn><issn>1531-5320</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQQIMotlYv_gDJSVRYTTLJJjlJLVYLRS96XrbJLFb2oybbw_57Iy306Gnm8HgzPEIuObsHrczD05yB4BI0OyJjroBnCgQ7TjvLbWbByBE5i_GbMaZym5-SEefMCJPLMXletD2GCgO2Dum6pQ02XRjoaqCb0DmMkXaBui5Rbf9IpzTgph5o39E3LPsveiOS9facnFRlHfFiPyfkc_78MXvNlu8vi9l0mTlQrM9QSymkBusE89yhAy-UBQS0zq-0kMZUXpRQaWGM0NZx5p3VgpegZOUVTMj1zpt--9li7ItmHR3Wddlit42FUQqUFfxfMN0SLDc6gXc70IUuxoBVsQnrpgxDwVnxV7c41E3w1d66XTXoD-g-J_wCdV1xOQ</recordid><startdate>20000901</startdate><enddate>20000901</enddate><creator>Jones, D M</creator><creator>Tremblay, S</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000901</creationdate><title>Interference in memory by process or content? A reply to Neath (2000)</title><author>Jones, D M ; Tremblay, S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-e74424739c20d1cec3d2593e3e9cdb72488fd2a3f7288279c10dc9721a354fd53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Acoustic Stimulation</topic><topic>Cues</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inhibition (Psychology)</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Mental Recall</topic><topic>Models, Psychological</topic><topic>Serial Learning</topic><topic>Speech</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jones, D M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tremblay, S</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Psychonomic bulletin & review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jones, D M</au><au>Tremblay, S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Interference in memory by process or content? A reply to Neath (2000)</atitle><jtitle>Psychonomic bulletin & review</jtitle><addtitle>Psychon Bull Rev</addtitle><date>2000-09-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>550</spage><epage>558</epage><pages>550-558</pages><issn>1069-9384</issn><eissn>1531-5320</eissn><coden>PBUREN</coden><abstract>The approach to the irrelevant sound effect by Neath (2000) is discussed in terms of the contrast between content-based and process-based interference. Four themes are highlighted: First, problematic features of the feature model are highlighted; second, results not considered by Neath are presented; third, empirical underpinnings of the feature model not related to the irrelevant-sound effect are questioned; last, the parsimony of the feature model is questioned. The balance of the evidence seems to be in favor of a process-based approach, on the grounds that it provides a comprehensive account of acoustic and task-based factors within the irrelevant sound effect, for both speech and nonspeech sound.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>11082864</pmid><doi>10.3758/BF03214370</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1069-9384 |
| ispartof | Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2000-09, Vol.7 (3), p.550-558 |
| issn | 1069-9384 1531-5320 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85535921 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Acoustic Stimulation Cues Humans Inhibition (Psychology) Memory Mental Recall Models, Psychological Serial Learning Speech |
| title | Interference in memory by process or content? A reply to Neath (2000) |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T14%3A06%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Interference%20in%20memory%20by%20process%20or%20content?%20A%20reply%20to%20Neath%20(2000)&rft.jtitle=Psychonomic%20bulletin%20&%20review&rft.au=Jones,%20D%20M&rft.date=2000-09-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=550&rft.epage=558&rft.pages=550-558&rft.issn=1069-9384&rft.eissn=1531-5320&rft.coden=PBUREN&rft_id=info:doi/10.3758/BF03214370&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E85535921%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72420687&rft_id=info:pmid/11082864&rfr_iscdi=true |