Auditory distraction disrupts episodic retrieval equivalently to visual distraction, indicating a domain-general interference effect in long-term memory¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · reviewr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Retrieval of relevant visual details declined in the auditory distractor condition relative to no-distractor and control-distractor conditions, mirroring the visual distraction pattern. → Wais 2014
q3 i? A mixed-design ANOVA across the two experiments found no main effect of distractor modality and no condition × modality interaction. → Wais 2014 (2)
Evidence¶
Wais 2014¶
Wais, P. E., and Gazzaley, A. (2014). Distractibility during retrieval of long-term memory: domain-general interference, neural networks and increased susceptibility in normal aging. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00280
q3 · i? · review · r2
Behavioral study using written cues to probe recall of visual details during silence, white noise, or ambient café sounds (AD), analyzed in a mixed-design ANOVA with the visual distraction experiment. "retrieval of relevant visual details during the distractor conditions declined"; no effect size printed.
"The results showed a main effect of condition such that retrieval of relevant visual details during the distractor conditions declined relative to both the no distractor and control distractor conditions."
Wais 2014 (2)¶
Wais, P. E., and Gazzaley, A. (2014). Distractibility during retrieval of long-term memory: domain-general interference, neural networks and increased susceptibility in normal aging. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00280
q3 · i? · review · r2
Direct mixed-design comparison (2 distractor modality × 3 condition ANOVA on conditional correct scores) between the auditory and visual distractor experiments. "no main effect of distractor modality and no interaction"; no effect size printed.
"Critically, there was no main effect of distractor modality and no interaction between condition and distractor modality."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Attention — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
Related Claims¶
- Older adults show greater distractibility than younger adults during episodic retrieval of long-term memory details — related
- Irrelevant visual stimuli present during a memory test diminish the fidelity of episodic details retrieved from long-term memory in younger adults — related
- Visual distraction disrupts functional connectivity in a left hippocampus-VLPFC-LOC network that supports episodic retrieval via visual imagery — related
- Perturbing left VLPFC with rTMS exacerbates the disruptive effect of visual distraction on episodic retrieval, indicating a causal role in resolving interference — related
- Domain-specific interference, attributed by the embedded-processes model to similarity-based interference, underpins multimedia learning's modality benefits — reports the opposite
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
auditory-distraction-domain-general-ltm-interference |
title |
Auditory distraction disrupts episodic retrieval equivalently to visual distraction, indicating a domain-general interference effect in long-term memory |
description |
Auditory distraction disrupts episodic retrieval equivalently to visual distraction, indicating a domain-general interference effect in long-term memory |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2014 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — wais-2014, wais-2014-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.