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¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i3large
Currency · newest study 2025 · 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 i3 Participants in the prospective-judgment group predicted masked speech to be significantly more distracting than pure speech (η²p = .63), and relative to the scale midpoint predicted pure speech to be helpful (d = 0.21). → 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 · i3 · causal · r2
Online experiment with 309 participants randomly assigned to a prospective-judgment group (n = 168) or control group; the prospective group rated each sound on a −6 to +6 metacognition scale before the serial-recall task. The article reports "masked speech was predicted to be distracting" with η²p = .63 and d = 0.21 for pure speech.
"Participants in the prospective-judgment group predicted masked speech to be significantly more distracting than pure speech, F(1, 167) = 283.20, p < .001, η2 p = .63. Relative to the neutral midpoint of the metacognition scale, masked speech was predicted to be distracting, t(167) = − 31.02, p < .001, d = − 2.39, while pure speech was predicted to be helpful, t(167) = 2.79, p = .006, d = 0.21."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 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 — 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
- 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
- Separate validation experiments confirmed that masked speech evokes a subjective experience of relative disfluency compared with pure speech — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
exp1-prospective-masked-speech-predicted-more-distracting |
title |
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 |
description |
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 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — gesa-fee-komar-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.