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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i1–i3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Prospective judgments showed masked speech predicted to be significantly more distracting than pure speech (η²p = .67), while objective distraction effects showed participants significantly less distracted by masked speech (η²p = .01). → Gesa Fee Komar 2025 q3 i1 In the serial-recall task, participants were significantly less distracted by masked speech than by pure speech (η²p = .01), with no group main effect or interaction. → Gesa Fee Komar 2025 (2)

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 774 participants randomly assigned to a prospective-judgment group (n = 383) or control group; speech was masked with speech babble at 0 dB(A) Leq. The article reports the prospective-judgment effect with η²p = .67 and d = 0.29 for pure speech.

"Participants in the prospective-judgment group predicted masked speech to be significantly more distracting than pure speech, F(1, 382) = 791.92, p < .001, η2 p = .67. Relative to the neutral midpoint of the metacognition scale, masked speech was predicted to be distracting, t(382) = − 58.45, p < .001, d = − 2.99, while pure speech was predicted to be helpful, t(382) = 5.67, p < .001, d = 0.29."

Gesa Fee Komar 2025 (2)¶

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 in Experiment 2 were computed from serial recall across masked-speech, pure-speech, and quiet trials in both groups (N = 774). The article reports the speech type effect (η²p = .01) and the null group main effect and interaction, noting both speech types still caused significant distraction relative to quiet.

"Participants were significantly less distracted by masked speech than by pure speech, F(1, 772) = 5.63, p = .018, η2 p = .01. 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, 772) = 0.09, p = .767, η2 p < .01, and did not interact with speech type, F(1, 772) = 0.55, p = .458, η2 p < .01."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Attention — outcome: instruction changes it

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 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
• Separate validation experiments confirmed that masked speech evokes a subjective experience of relative disfluency compared with pure speech — related