Emotional Vocalizations Cause Auditory Distraction That Affects Word Repetition and Behavioral Listening Effort.
Erin M Picou, Shae Morgan, Steven C Marcrum and 3 others
Emotional vocalizations (pleasant, neutral, or unpleasant) slowed secondary-task responses in both quiet and noise, but did not meaningfully reduce word repetition.
The emotion of the sound had no specific trial-by-trial distraction effect beyond a general slowing.
Key findings
1Word repetition scores were 108 rau for words preceded by a vocalization versus 110 rau for words without one. The Bayes Factor of 0.16 and the small effect size led the authors to conclude the effect was specious and that essentially only background noise affected word repetition.
2Secondary-task response times were 1765 msec for words following a vocalization versus 1735 msec without one. Neutral vocalizations produced faster responses (1726 msec) than pleasant (1769 msec) or unpleasant (1755 msec), but the authors note this was a general slowing across the block rather than a specific distraction effect after each vocalization.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 18 participants, all young (22 to 47) with normal hearing, so the findings cannot be generalised to older adults, people with hearing loss, or those with auditory processing difficulties. The vocalizations were single vowel sounds (/æ/) produced by actors, not natural conversational exclamations, so ecological validity is limited. Vocalizations were presented on 45% of trials and blocked by valence, which the authors note may reduce novelty and distractibility compared with the 24% rate and mixed-valence design used in prior studies. Participants were not instructed to ignore the vocalizations, unlike prior studies, making direct comparison with those studies difficult. The dual-task design (word repetition plus timed noun categorization) may have raised cognitive load enough to mask the word-repetition distraction effect seen in prior single-task studies. The valence effect on response times was a general block-level slowing rather than a trial-specific distraction effect, and the authors acknowledge the mechanism (carryover vs. other) is unclear.
Declared interests
Funded by the ASH Foundation (Advancing Academic Research Career Award, E. Picou). The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the p = 0.039 for word repetition as evidence that emotional vocalizations distract. The authors themselves call this effect specious, citing a Bayes Factor of 0.16 (supporting the null) and a small effect size. The only robust finding is the 30 msec slowing of secondary-task responses, which is small in magnitude.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →