When Noise Fails to Disrupt Working Memory: An Experimental Study on Smartphone-Addicted Users

Salma Ayu Afifah; Dhia Adlan Nasution; Aprilia Rizki Maharani; Wilis Srisayekti; Yanti Rubiyanti; Yulia Eka Rini; Suwaibah Zakaria

doi:10.22146/jpsi.109188

When Noise Fails to Disrupt Working Memory: An Experimental Study on Smartphone-Addicted Users

https://doi.org/10.22146/jpsi.109188

Salma Ayu Afifah^(1*), Dhia Adlan Nasution⁽²⁾, Aprilia Rizki Maharani⁽³⁾, Wilis Srisayekti⁽⁴⁾, Yanti Rubiyanti⁽⁵⁾, Yulia Eka Rini⁽⁶⁾, Suwaibah Zakaria⁽⁷⁾

(1) Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia 🇮🇩
(2) Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia 🇮🇩
(3) Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia 🇮🇩
(4) Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia 🇮🇩
(5) Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia 🇮🇩
(6) Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia 🇮🇩
(7) University of Malaysia Sabah, School of Psychology and Social Work. Malaysia 🇲🇾
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the causal impact of the irrelevant sound effect (ISE)—specifically background speech noise—on the working memory performance of university students with smartphone addiction. Working memory, a cognitive system that supports the simultaneous storage and processing of information, plays a crucial role in academic tasks that require sustained concentration. The study employed a quantitative experimental method with a between-subjects design, comparing two groups: one exposed to background speech noise and a control group without auditory interference. Working memory performance was measured using the automated operation span (O-Span) task, which requires participants to solve mathematical equations while remembering sequences of letters. A total of 66 university students who scored high on the Smartphone Addiction Scale participated in the study. Statistical analyses revealed no significant differences between the two groups in either processing or storage performance. These findings suggest that exposure to background speech noise does not necessarily impair working memory, at least among individuals with high levels of smartphone use. One possible explanation is that these individuals may have developed cognitive adaptations that allow them to filter out distracting sounds—an ability potentially shaped by habitual digital multitasking. This study contributes to the growing evidence that the impact of the ISE is not universal and may be moderated by the unique characteristics of specific populations.

Keywords

working memory; smartphone addiction; irrelevant sound effect; automated operation span (O-Span) task

Full Text:

PDF

References

Arthy, C. C., Effendy, E., Amin, M. M., Loebis, B., Camellia, V., & Husada, M. S. (2019). Indonesian version of addiction rating scale of smartphone usage adapted from smartphone addiction scale-short version (SAS-SV) in junior high school. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 7(19), 3235–3239. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.691

Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422

Baddeley, A. (2020). Working Memory. In A. Baddeley, M. W. Eysenck, & M. C. Anderson (Eds.), Memory (3rd edition, Vol. 255, Issue 5044, pp. 71–111). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429449642-4

Canale, N., Vieno, A., Doro, M., Rosa Mineo, E., Marino, C., & Billieux, J. (2019). Emotion-related impulsivity moderates the cognitive interference effect of smartphone availability on working memory. Scientific Reports, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54911-7

Ellermeier, W., & Zimmer, K. (1997). Individual differences in susceptibility to the “irrelevant speech effect.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102(4), 2191–2199. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.419596

Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00160

Gisselgård, J., Petersson, K. M., & Ingvar, M. (2004). The irrelevant speech effect and working memory load. NeuroImage, 22(3), 1107–1116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.02.031

Hadlington, L. J. (2015). Cognitive failures in daily life: Exploring the link with Internet addiction and problematic mobile phone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 51(PA), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.036

Jones, D. M., & Macken, W. J. (1993). Irrelevant tones produce an irrelevant speech effect: Implications for phonological coding in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 369.

Kattner, F., & Meinhardt, H. (2020). Dissociating the Disruptive Effects of Irrelevant Music and Speech on Serial Recall of Tonal and Verbal Sequences. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00346

Kwon, M., Kim, D. J., Cho, H., & Yang, S. (2013). The smartphone addiction scale: Development and validation of a short version for adolescents. PLoS ONE, 8(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083558

Lee, E. J., & Kim, H. S. (2018). Gender Differences in Smartphone Addiction Behaviors Associated with Parent-Child Bonding, Parent-Child Communication, and Parental Mediation among Korean Elementary School Students. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 29(4), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1097/JAN.0000000000000254

Leist, L., Lachmann, T., Schlittmeier, S. J., Georgi, M., & Klatte, M. (2023). Irrelevant speech impairs serial recall of verbal but not spatial items in children and adults. Memory and Cognition, 51(2), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-022-01359-2

Little, J. S., Martin, F. H., & Thomson, R. H. S. (2010). Speech versus non-speech as irrelevant sound: Controlling acoustic variation. Biological Psychology, 85(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.05.004

Neath, I. (2000). Modeling the effects of irrelevant speech on memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(3), 403–423.

Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106

Pemayun, P. M. (2019). Pengaruh Adiksi Smartphone, Fear of Missing Out (FoMO), dan Konformitas terhadap Phubbing (Bachelor’s thesis, Fakultas Psikologi UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta).

Pimperton, H., & Nation, K. (2010). Suppressing irrelevant information from working memory: Evidence for domain-specific deficits in poor comprehenders. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(4), 380–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.02.005

Röer, J. P., Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (2014). Evidence for habituation of the irrelevant-sound effect on serial recall. Memory and Cognition, 42(4), 609–621. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0381-y

Salame, P., & Baddeley, A. (1982). Disruption of Short-Term Memory by Unattended Speech: Implications for the Structure of Working Memory. JOURNAL OF VERBAL LEARNING AND VERBAL BEHAVIOR, 21, 150–164.

Schlittmeier, S. J., Hellbrück, J., Thaden, R., & Vorländer, M. (2008). The impact of background speech varying in intelligibility: Effects on cognitive performance and perceived disturbance. Ergonomics, 51(5), 719–736.

Sinaga, Y. L. D. Y., Mahaedhie, G., Basry, S., & Lolan, Y. P. (2024). International Journal of Medical Science and Clinical Research Studies The Relationship between Gender, Smartphone Addiction, and Sleep Quality among High School Students at Adventist Schools in Jakarta. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijmscrs/v4

Skowronek, J., Seifert, A., & Lindberg, S. (2023). The mere presence of a smartphone reduces basal attentional performance. Scientific Reports, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36256-4

Song, C., Li, H., Ma, H., Han, T., & Wu, J. (2022). Effects of Noise Type and Noise Sensitivity on Working Memory and Noise Annoyance. Noise and Health, 24(114), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.4103/nah.nah_6_22

Unsworth, N., & Heitz, R. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task.

Ward, A. F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., & Bos, M. W. (2017). Brain drain: The mere presence of one’s own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1086/691462

Wilmer, H. H., Sherman, L. E., & Chein, J. M. (2017). Smartphones and cognition: A review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning. In Frontiers in Psychology (Vol. 8, Issue APR). Frontiers Media S.A. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00605

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jpsi.109188