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

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 In both validation experiments, masked speech was rated significantly more difficult to listen to than pure speech on a single-item disfluency scale (both η²p = .98). → Gesa Fee Komar 2025 q3 i3 The Experiment 2 validation experiment likewise confirmed the disfluency manipulation with speech babble (η²p = .98). → 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

A separate validation experiment with 106 participants rated processing (dis)fluency of each speech sequence on a single-item scale from −6 (very difficult) to +6 (very easy), with speech sequences as units of analysis. Masked speech (M = − 2.72) was rated "significantly more difficult to listen to than pure speech" (M = 5.08), η²p = .98.

"Using the speech sequences as the units of analysis, masked speech ( M = − 2.72, SD = 0.67) was rated to be significantly more difficult to listen to than pure speech (M = 5.08, SD = 0.24), F(1, 62) = 3870.76, p < .001, η2 p = .98."

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 · i3 · causal · r2

A separate validation experiment with 88 participants confirmed the disfluency manipulation for speech babble masking, using the same single-item scale with speech sequences as units of analysis. Masked speech (M = − 2.99) was rated "significantly more difficult to listen to than pure speech" (M = 5.10), η²p = .98.

"Using the speech sequences as the units of analysis, masked speech ( M = − 2.99, SD = 0.81) was rated to be significantly more difficult to listen to than pure speech ( M = 5.10, SD = 0.25), F(1, 62) = 2926.60, p < .001, η2 p = .98."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 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 were objectively less distracted by masked speech than by pure speech in serial recall, although both types caused significant distraction relative to quiet — related
• Perceived task difficulty ratings show a strong relation to Rasch-estimated relative task difficulty, supporting construct validity of the single-item scale — related