Auditory Versus Visual Interruptions: A Skeptical Perspective on Auditory Preemption and Suggestions for Advancing Theory.
Auditory preemption applies to the case where a person is engaged in an ongoing visual task and intermittently is required to engage in an additional discrete task. Some research has suggested that an interruption from an auditory discrete task is more damaging to the ongoing visual task than an equ...
| Publicado en: | Auditory Perception & Cognition Vol. 7; no. 2; pp. 140 - 163 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Jun2024
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=177459079&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 177459079 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 25742442 LTVK jtl: Auditory Perception & Cognition issn: 25742442 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jun2024 vid: 7 iid: 2 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania artinfo: ui: 177459079 10.1080/25742442.2024.2311054 177459079 ppf: 140 ppct: 23 formats: tig: atl: Auditory Versus Visual Interruptions: A Skeptical Perspective on Auditory Preemption and Suggestions for Advancing Theory. aug: au: Nees, Michael A. affil: Department of Psychology, Lafayette College, Easton, PA, USA sug: ab: Auditory preemption applies to the case where a person is engaged in an ongoing visual task and intermittently is required to engage in an additional discrete task. Some research has suggested that an interruption from an auditory discrete task is more damaging to the ongoing visual task than an equivalent interruption from a visual discrete task – a phenomenon that has been described formally as Auditory Preemption Theory. In this critical comment, I review the definition and history of the notion of auditory preemption and survey the most cited literature that has purported to show auditory preemption. I argue that the foundational evidence of auditory preemption has been characterized by shortcomings that weaken or preclude the conclusion that auditory preemption occurred. I argue that there is little evidence that the effect described by Auditory Preemption Theory is a modality effect – findings across laboratory studies appear approximately consistent with what would be expected due to sampling error if no auditory preemption effect exists. Plausible alternate candidates to explain phenomena that have been attributed to auditory preemption include startle responses, cognitive demands associated with speech generation in communication tasks, and possibly social demands associated with human communications. Suggestions from the open science movement to improve methods and theory are applied to the problem of building theories of interruption modalities. These suggestions include methodological reforms and making more explicit auxiliary assumptions about theories. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|