In Experiment 1, participants were objectively less distracted by masked speech than by pure speech in serial recall, although both types caused significant distraction relative to quiet¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 A 2×2 mixed ANOVA showed participants were significantly less distracted by masked speech than by pure speech (η²p = .02), with no effect of judgment group and no group × speech type interaction. → Gesa Fee Komar 2025

Evidence¶

Gesa Fee Komar 2025¶

Gesa Fee Komar, Axel Buchner, Laura Mieth, Raoul Bell. (2025). Partially masking task-irrelevant speech has opposite effects on metacognitive judgments of distraction and objective distraction effects. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09436-y

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Objective distraction effects were computed from serial recall of eight-digit sequences across masked-speech, pure-speech, and quiet control trials in both groups (N = 309). The article reports the omnibus speech type effect (η²p = .02) and the null group main effect and interaction, and notes both speech types still caused significant distraction relative to quiet.

"Participants were significantly less distracted by masked speech than by pure speech, F(1, 307) = 6.50, p = .011, η2 p = .02. Whether or not participants were asked to provide prospective judgments before the objective distraction effects were measured did not affect the objective distraction effects overall, F(1, 307) = 0.47, p = .493, η2 p < .01, and did not interact with speech type, F(1, 307) = 0.06, p = .812, η2 p < .01."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Attention — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• In Experiment 2 with speech babble masking, participants again predicted masked speech to be more distracting than pure speech while being objectively less distracted by it, replicating Experiment 1 — related
• In Experiment 1, participants predicted masked speech (speech in pink noise) to be more distracting than pure speech, even predicting pure speech to be slightly helpful — related
• In Experiment 1, retrospective judgments after firsthand experience still showed the metacognitive illusion, and it was amplified in participants who had earlier given prospective judgments — related
• Separate validation experiments confirmed that masked speech evokes a subjective experience of relative disfluency compared with pure speech — related