The Effect of Auditory Distraction upon the Sensory Reaction

1918 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edna E. Cassel ◽  
K. M. Dallenbach
2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bozana Meinhardt-Injac ◽  
Sabine Schlittmeier ◽  
Maria Klatte ◽  
Annette Otto ◽  
Malte Persike ◽  
...  

1965 ◽  
Vol 111 (474) ◽  
pp. 391-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew McGhie ◽  
James Chapman ◽  
J. S. Lawson

In the preceding paper the effect of experimental distraction was examined and the findings discussed. The present report is concerned with a similar study of the effect of distraction on tests which involve another aspect of schizophrenic performance, that of psychomotor ability. Earlier studies (Chapman and McGhie, 1961, 1962) produced both clinical and experimental evidence that auditory distraction disrupted the motor responses of some schizophrenic patients. As the previous experimental findings were based on two tests involving only very limited areas of psychomotor performance, it was necessary to examine patients on a wide range of psychomotor tests. A second aim of the present investigation was to assess any differential effects due to variation in the sensory modality of the distracting stimuli.


2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (8) ◽  
pp. 1952-1962 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Getzmann ◽  
Patrick D. Gajewski ◽  
Michael Falkenstein

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Raoul Bell ◽  
Laura Mieth ◽  
Jan Philipp Röer ◽  
Axel Buchner

Neuroreport ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 240-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karla D. Ponjavic-Conte ◽  
Jarrod R. Dowdall ◽  
Dillon A. Hambrook ◽  
Artur Luczak ◽  
Matthew S. Tata

Author(s):  
C. Philip Beaman

The modern world is noisy. Streets are cacophonies of traffic noise; homes and workplaces are replete with bleeping timers, announcements, and alarms. Everywhere there is the sound of human speech—from the casual chatter of strangers and the unwanted intrusion from electronic devices through to the conversations with friends and loved ones one may actually wish to hear. Unlike vision, it is not possible simply to “close our ears” and shut out the auditory world and nor, in many cases, is it desirable. On the one hand, soft background music or environmental sounds, such as birdsong or the noise of waves against the beach, is often comfortingly pleasurable or reassuring. On the other, alarms are usually auditory for a reason. Nevertheless, people somehow have to identify, from among the babble that surrounds them, the sounds and speech of interest and importance and to follow the thread of a chosen speaker in a crowded auditory environment. Additionally, irrelevant or unwanted chatter or other background noise should not hinder concentration on matters of greater interest or importance—students should ideally be able to study effectively despite noisy classrooms or university halls while still being open to the possibility of important interruptions from elsewhere. The scientific study of auditory attention has been driven by such practical problems: how people somehow manage to select the most interesting or most relevant speaker from the competing auditory demands made by the speech of others or isolate the music of the band from the chatter of the nightclub. In parallel, the causes of auditory distraction—and how to try to avoid it where necessary—have also been subject to scrutiny. A complete theory of auditory attention must account for the mechanisms by which selective attention is achieved, the causes of auditory distraction, and the reasons why individuals might differ in their ability in both cases.


2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 1090-1097 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter E. Wais ◽  
Adam Gazzaley

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document