Learning and Motivation 80 (2022) 101841

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Motivation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/l&m

An analysis of the effects of topographically similar and dissimilar

auditory stimuli on the accuracy and latency to respond in a
math task☆
Michael J. Harman a, 1, Tiffany Kodak b, *, 2, Samantha Bergmann c, 3, Brittany Juban d
a
Department of Psychology, Briar Cliff University, USA
b
Department of Psychology, Marquette University, USA
c
Department of Behavior Analysis, University of North Texas, USA
d
May Institute, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of topographically similar and dissimilar
Covert behavior distracting auditory stimuli on performance in a math task. Forty-seven college students served as
Distractor stimuli participants, and they were instructed to solve 30 arithmetic problems presented both vocally and
Mediating verbal behavior
visually. While solving some of the arithmetic problems, auditory stimuli were played. Auditory
Problem solving
stimuli consisted of spoken strings of numbers (topographically similar condition) or spoken
Thinking
passages of a short story (topographically dissimilar condition). Data were collected on response
latency, accuracy, and the occurrence of spontaneous vocal verbal behavior. Performance mea­
sures were compared between and within conditions. Between-condition analyses yielded no
significant differences in performance measures. Within-condition comparisons allowed for an
analysis of performance measures during the first five trials and final five trials of each condition.
Within-condition analyses yielded significant differences in performance measures for the topo­
graphically similar condition. Results of this study highlight the importance of within-condition
analyses of performance.

When working on everyday tasks (e.g., reading an article, calculating a tip), individuals often prefer distraction-free environment as
quiet typically promotes task performance (Hasher & Zacks, 1998; Kahneman, 1973; Weeks & Hasher, 2014). For example, a nearby
conversation in a coffee shop may be perceived as distracting when attempting to read and comprehend a complicated scholarly
article. As such, individuals may work to avoid such contexts. Similarly, individuals may request that dinning partners momentarily
abstain from conversation while attempting to calculate a tip. In everyday terms, individuals may report that the function of these

☆
We thank Christopher Baumann, Leah Bohl, Gabriella Van Den Elzen, Jenny Martin, Theresa Mayland, and Lexi Raczka for their assistance
with data collection. Authors report no conflicts of interest. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of
the institution and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained
from all individual participants involved in the study.
* Correspondence to: Department of Psychology, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53233, USA.
E-mail address: Tiffany.Kodak@marquette.edu (T. Kodak).
1
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3218-736X.
2
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4250-7374.
3
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7952-7179.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2022.101841
Received 30 December 2021; Received in revised form 15 August 2022; Accepted 15 August 2022
Available online 7 September 2022
0023-9690/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M.J. Harman et al. Learning and Motivation 80 (2022) 101841

behaviors (avoiding or escaping distracting environments) is to increase their capacity to think, comprehend, or problem solve
(Harman et al., 2021; Kodak et al., 2018; May, 1999). The presence of certain stimuli while responding to a task at hand may interfere
with thought processes necessary for effective task performance (i.e., thought interference; Bloem & Heij, 2003; Irfan et al., 2019; Wei
& Schnur, 2016). Empirical investigations from a variety of conceptual frameworks have attempted to uncover the mechanisms by
which distracting stimuli interfere with task performance (e.g., Clough et al., 2016; Gutierrez, 2006; Harman et al., 2021; Kodak et al.,
2018; Sanders & Baron, 1975; Sundberg et al., 2018; Zickerick et al., 2020; Zimmer & Brachulis-Raymond, 1978).
Previous research has classified two different forms of distracting stimuli. The term, distractor (or distraction), is used to describe
stimuli or events that do not share topographical or thematical properties with the task at hand (Nosik et al., 2017; Zickerick et al.,
2020). For example, while reading, the sound of brewing coffee may be considered a distracting stimulus as it does not share topo­
graphical properties to reading comprehension (i.e., covertly, or overtly responding to textual stimuli). Similarly, background classical
music played through a loudspeaker may be considered a distracting stimulus as it does not share thematical properties (e.g.,
instrumental auditory stimuli) to reading comprehension. For purposes of clarity, distracting stimuli as defined above will be hereafter
referred to as topographically dissimilar distracting stimuli.
The term, interrupter (or interruption), is used to describe stimuli or events that share topographical or thematic properties with the
task at hand (Clapp et al., 2010). For example, while reading, a nearby conversation may be considered an interrupter as the con­
versation shares topographical similarity to reading comprehension. The conversation may become more interrupting if the content of
the conversation shares thematical properties with the text being read (e.g., conversation about a topic addressed in the reading).
Interruptions can be further sub-divided into explicit interruptions (Clapp et al., 2010) and implicit interruptions (Mitchell et al.,
2008). Explicit interruptions specifically interfere with responding to a task via stimuli that directly control shifts in attention (Weeks
& Hasher, 2014; Zickerick et al., 2020). For example, while reading, a command to “stop reading and look up,” interferes with task
performance via an explicit command to shift attention away from the current task. Implicit interruptions interfere with responding to
a task via stimuli that indirectly control shifts in attention (i.e., faulty stimulus control; Harman et al., 2021; Kodak et al., 2018). For
example, an individual may begin to sing along with background music played over a loudspeaker while reading despite no explicit
instruction to shift stimulus control from the textual stimuli to the auditory stimuli. Notably, in both types of interruptions, an in­
dividual’s learning history or experience with the interrupting stimulus likely moderates any interrupting effect. For purposes of
clarity, interrupting stimuli – explicit and implicit – as defined above will be hereafter referred to as topographically similar distracting
stimuli.
There is growing interest in studying the effects of thought interference from a behavioral perspective. Instead of referring to
cognitive mechanisms associated with interrupting thoughts or information processing (Nicholas & Cohen, 2016), radical behaviorism
asserts that these are behaviors under the control of environmental stimuli (Moore, 2009). That is, the processes account for physical,
quantifiable, and measurable behaviors. For example, when an individual is attempting to recall the name of an acquaintance, they
may think to themselves covertly about the last time they saw and interacted with the person, or they may start to use mnemonic
strategies to recall the name (e.g., start listing all the names that start with A, then with B, and so on). One difference between the
mnemonic strategies and saying the name is the level to which they are typically emitted: covert (i.e., only accessible to the speaker)
and overt (i.e., accessible to both speakers and listeners), respectively. Further, when an individual finds themselves in a distracting or
interrupting environment, they might engage in behaviors to escape these stimuli. As a method to escape stimuli from a nearby
conversation, an individual may begin to read aloud (i.e., spontaneous vocal verbal behavior [SVVB]; Skinner, 1957). The presence of
the individual’s own overt verbal behavior may then effectively compete with distracting auditory stimuli such that they can better
attend to their own verbal behavior.
As it concerns the effects of topographically similar and dissimilar distracting stimuli on task performance, empirical investigations
have produced mixed findings (see Weeks et al., 2014 for a brief review). For example, Kodak et al. (2018) measured the effects of
presenting topographically similar auditory distractor stimuli during a response interval on participants’ latency to respond and ac­
curacy to arithmetic problems. Participants’ performance was significantly affected by the presence of topographically similar
auditory stimuli in comparison to trials in which no auditory stimuli were present. Moreover, during these conditions, participants
were more likely to emit spontaneous overt verbal behavior. Harman et al. (2021) conducted a similar experiment but used topo­
graphically dissimilar auditory distractor stimuli. In this arrangement, participants’ latency to respond and accuracy to arithmetic
problems was not significantly affected. Similar findings have also been observed in other studies (e.g., Clough et al., 2016; Gutierrez,
2006; Nosik et al., 2017; Sundberg et al., 2018).
Despite empirical demonstrations of the deleterious effects of topographically similar distracting stimuli on task performance, other
investigations have found that these stimuli enhance task performance (Weeks & Hasher, 2014). For example, Zimmer &
Brachulis-Raymond, (1978) played topographically similar distracting auditory stimuli (tape recordings of speeches) and dissimilar
stimuli (industrial noises) while participants read passages (i.e., textual paragraphs) about a fictious African nation. Measures of
reading comprehension were attained via questionnaires about the passages. Participants exposed to topographically similar dis­
tracting auditory stimuli while reading to passages performed better on comprehension tests compared to participants subjected to
topographically dissimilar distracting auditory stimuli. Further, Connell et al. (1991) and May (1999) instructed adult participants to
read brief passages. While reading, topographically dissimilar and similar distracting textual stimuli (words thematically related to a
reading passage) were presented in participants’ visual fields (i.e., in margins, below passages). Participants exposed to topographi­
cally similar distracting textual stimuli outperformed participants exposed to topographically dissimilar distracting textual stimuli on
tests of reading comprehension.
Due to the contrasting findings described, it is important to identify methodological differences between studies. First, some studies
utilized simple tasks (e.g., rote copying tasks; Zimmer & Brachulis-Raymond, 1978) while others used complex tasks (e.g., solving

2
M.J. Harman et al. Learning and Motivation 80 (2022) 101841

arithmetic problems; Harman et al., 2021; Kodak et al., 2018; Zickerick et al., 2020). Thus, the task complexity may confound
inter-experiment comparisons. Secondly, some studies adopted between-subjects designs while others used within-subjects designs.
These discrepancies complicate analyses of carryover or order effects. Third, studies differ across definitions of the dependent variable
(e.g., arithmetic accuracy; Harman et al., 2021; Kodak et al., 2018, reading comprehension; Connell et al., 1991; Griffin & Wright,
2009; May, 1999). Finally, studies rarely report within-condition changes in performance as a function of repeated exposure to the
independent variable (i.e., within-session analyses; see Fahmie & Hanley, 2008 for a review of within-session data analysis recom­
mendations). This makes it difficult to determine the extent to which participants learn strategies to respond to distracting stimuli.
Thus, the current study extends the line of research on the effects of topographically similar and dissimilar auditory distractor
stimuli on task performance by instructing college students to solve arithmetic problems while topographically similar distracting
auditory stimuli (e.g., random string of numbers) and dissimilar distracting auditory stimuli (e.g., a short story passage) were played.
This study sought to (a) further measure the differential effects of topographically similar and dissimilar distracting auditory stimuli on
task performance, (b) determine the conditions under which spontaneous vocal verbal behavior occurred while solving problems, and
(c) evaluate within-condition changes in participants’ performance.
Addressing the question of the effects of topographically similar and dissimilar distracting stimuli on task performance is of both
theoretical and practical significance. From a theoretical perspective, comparisons of the different stimuli may further our under­
standing of the mechanisms controlling task performance. That is, if responding is enhanced in the presence of topographically similar
distracting stimuli, perhaps these mechanisms function to allocate attention to the task in a manner facilitates efficient and effective
task completion (Brown, 1997). This would indicate that task performance not only calls upon task-specific mechanisms that function
to solve a problem (e.g., arithmetic repertoire), but also activates task-facilitating mechanisms that function to monitor and respond to
the context in which a task is performed (Anderson et al., 2016). From a practical perspective, addressing this question may inform best
practice in adequately teaching and preparing individuals to engage in tasks (e.g., solving an arithmetic problem) in a variety of
environments (see skill generalization across settings; Cooper et al., 2019). For example, after establishing a generalized arithmetic
repertoire, continued practice may ensue in a variety of contexts (e.g., quiet, distracting) to strengthen task-facilitating mechanisms.

1. Method

1.1. Subjects, setting, and materials

Forty-seven undergraduate psychology students at a Mid-Western university were recruited to participate in this study. Thirty-
seven participants identified as female, and participants’ mean age was 22.0 years (SD = 5.26; see Table 1 for participant de­
mographics). All participants received extra credit for a psychology course for their participation. All participants completed prescreen
questionnaires to ensure that they met the inclusionary criteria: (a) at least 18 years old and (b) no hearing or visual impairments.
Sessions were no longer than 60 min and took place in a private laboratory. The session room contained a table, chairs, and relevant
study materials (e.g., cardboard divider, speaker, audio recording device). If the participant consented to audio recording, the
experimenter placed a small audio recorder next to the participant on the table to capture the participant’s vocal responses during the
session. A speaker played audio files from an iPad® at 80 decibels (dB). Prior to the start of each condition, the experimenter confirmed
the dB level via an electronic dB meter application (Decibel X; SkyPaw Co. Ltd, 2021) on the iPad® and positioned the participant’s
chair between two pieces of tape on the table to maintain the confirmed dB level during the experiment. Audio files produced an
auditory stimulus that consisted of a female’s voice either reciting random strings of numbers between 1 and 54 at a rate of one number
per second, or one of five reading passages at a rate of two words per second (see Kodak et al., 2018 for further description). The range
of numbers for the random string of numbers audio file was determined based on the solutions to the arithmetic problems (i.e., 33 –
57). Reading passages were selected from Acadience Reading 7–9 assessment (Abbott et al., 2018). The experimenters selected five
passages because they did not contain any numbers (specific passages available from second author upon request).
Fifty arithmetic problems were created; each arithmetic problem contained three numbers: one number that was between 20 and
29, one number between 10 and 19, and one number between 1 and 9. A random number generator (www.random.org) was used to

Table 1
Participant demographics.
n %

Gender
Female 33 68.7%
Male 15 31.3%
Age range
18–24 38 79.2%
25–34 9 18.8%
35+ 1 2.0%
Ethnicity
White / Caucasian 26 54.2%
Black / African American 11 22.9%
Hispanic / Latino 5 10.4%
Asian 5 10.4%
Not specified 1 2.0%

3
M.J. Harman et al. Learning and Motivation 80 (2022) 101841

produce the three numbers used in each arithmetic problem. Each problem was also printed in 72-point Calibri font on 10 cm × 15 cm
flashcards. Thirty arithmetic problems were randomly selected for each experimental session with 10 problems randomly assigned to
each condition (described below). Each arithmetic problem was spoken by the experimenter and presented visually on the flashcard.

2. Response measurement, interobserver agreement, and procedural integrity

Observers used paper and pencil to collect data on the dependent variables during each trial. Our dependent variables were latency
to respond, accuracy, and spontaneous vocal verbal behavior (SVVB). Latency to respond was defined as the number of seconds from the
end of the presentation of the math problem to the participant’s response. A response was scored when the participant stated their
answer to the math problem. If the participant provided more than one response (e.g., “thirty-two, or maybe thirty-three”), the
experimenter recorded the first response. If a response was not emitted within the allotted 60 s, the latency was recorded as 60 s
Accuracy was defined as the participant providing the pre-determined correct answer to the math problem. Responses were compared
to an answer sheet following the completion of the session to determine the accuracy of the participant’s responses in each trial.
Spontaneous vocal verbal behavior (SVVB) was defined as the participant engaging in audible vocal behavior during the response in­
terval. Data on SVVB were subsequently categorized according to two pre-defined categories: Engaging in SVVB that (a) contained
numbers (i.e., adding, e.g., “twenty-six plus fifteen plus three”) or (b) did not contain numbers (i.e., commenting on the math problem,
e.g., “This is hard.”). We included SVVB that contained numbers in the analyses in the current study.
A second observer independently collected data on all dependent variables during 68% of sessions. We calculated trial-by-trial
interobserver agreement (IOA) for each dependent variable by dividing the number of trials in which the observers recorded the
same behavior (e.g., final overt response, correct / incorrect, SVVB) by the total number of trials in a session and multiplying by 100.
For latency measures, agreement between observers was scored if the duration of times differed by no more than 2 s. For accuracy
measures, agreement between observers was scored if the recorded responses matched (i.e., both observers recorded the same nu­
merical response emitted by the participant) and if the recorded accuracy matched (e.g., both observers marked a response “correct”).
Mean agreement for all dependent variables across conditions was 99% (range, 91–100%). When available, audio recordings of the
session were referenced to resolve disagreements.
A second observer independently collected treatment integrity data during 68% of sessions. All-or-nothing integrity data were
scored (scores of either 1 or 0) for each trial. A score of 1 was based on the experimenter correctly (a) presenting the arithmetic problem
assigned to the trial, (b) presenting the entire arithmetic problem within 2 s, (c) presenting the corresponding flash card within 0.5 s of
the vocal presentation of the arithmetic problem, (d) presenting the correct auditory stimulus within 1 s of the vocal presentation of the
arithmetic problem (if relevant), (e) waiting up to 60 s for the participant to respond, and (f) not providing any feedback following the
participant’s response. To calculate treatment integrity, we divided the number of trials implemented correctly by the total number of
trials in a session and converted the ratio to a percentage. Mean treatment integrity data was 99% (range, 93–100%).

3. Experimental design

We evaluated the effects of the topographically similar and dissimilar distracting auditory stimuli on participants’ performance via
a within-subjects modified multielement design (i.e., each participant experienced every level of the independent variable multiple
times within an experimental session). The order of math problems and the specific assignment of each math problem was pseudo-
randomly determined for each participant such that the first fifteen trials and last fifteen trials included five problems assigned to
each condition. We opted to use this modified multielement design to best model typical environments in which topographically
similar and dissimilar stimuli might occur in succession (i.e., moment-to-moment contextual changes while completing tasks).

4. Procedure

For each experimental session, the experimenter placed a cardboard divider on the table so that the participant could not see the
experimenter’s data sheet, iPad®, session timers, or any other materials. The experimenter then read the instructions below to the
participant (from Kodak et al., 2018).
“I am going to read a math problem. I can only read the problem to you one time. Please do your best to solve the problem. Do
not cover or plug your ears while you are trying to solve the problem. When you think you have the answer, please say the
answer out loud. You have one minute to solve each problem. If you haven’t solved the problem by the end of the minute, I will
ask you to stop and I will present the next math problem. Do you have any questions before we begin?”.
The experimenter answered questions about the absence of paper and a pencil, the total number of math problems, and the option
to take a break. If the participant asked questions about how to solve the problem (e.g., “Can I use my fingers to solve problems?”), the
experimenter said that the participant could use whatever strategy they would like to solve the problem. The experimenter responded,
“I can’t answer that question” for all other questions.
A session consisted of 30 trials: 10 control trials and 20 experimental trials (described below). The 20 experimental trials were
divided into two conditions: topographically similar and topographically dissimilar distracting auditory stimuli (described below). The
order of trials was pseudo-randomly determined such that the first 15 trials and the last 15 trials included 5 trials of each condition.
Similar to Harman et al. (2021) and Kodak et al. (2018), the experimenter presented the arithmetic problem for each trial at
conversational level, presented the accompanying flashcard approximately 75 cm in front of the participant’s face, initiated the

4
M.J. Harman et al. Learning and Motivation 80 (2022) 101841

auditory stimulus (if applicable), started the trial timer, and waited up to 60 s for the participant to respond. If the participant did not
respond within 60 s, the experimenter said “stop,” and initiated the intertrial interval (approximately 5 s). Participants did not receive
any feedback for responses and did not have a paper, pen, or any other materials to assist them in solving the math problem during the
response interval.
Beginning with participant 16 through participant 47 (n = 31), the experimenter asked: “If you had to answer an additional 30
math problems, would you prefer to listen to the random numbers or the short stories?” The experimenter recorded the participant’s
response.

4.1. Control condition

Similar to Kodak et al. (2018) the experimenter presented the math problem vocally, presented the relevant flashcard, and waited
quietly for up to 60 s for the participant to provide a response. No auditory stimuli were played during the response interval.

4.2. Topographically similar condition

This condition was similar to the control condition with one exception. As soon as the relevant flashcard was presented, the
experimenter played an auditory stimulus at approximately 80 dB that contained random strings of numbers from 1 to 54. The
experimenter turned off the auditory stimulus as soon as the participant responded or once the 60-s response interval elapsed. The
auditory stimulus was not presented between trials.

4.3. Topographically dissimilar condition

This condition was similar to the topographically similar condition with one exception. The auditory stimulus consisted of one of
five reading passages.

5. Data analysis

For each dependent variable, we calculated mean measures for the first five exposures to each condition (referred to as trial block 1)
and the last five exposures to each condition (referred to as trial block 2). Prior to conducting statistical analyses, measures of uni­
variate normality were analyzed to determine the extent to which each dependent variable met necessary assumptions for parametric
analyses. This included assessments of skewness, kurtosis, and homogeneity of variance. Accordingly, adjustments were made for
violations of normality (e.g., Greenhouse-Giesser corrections to degrees of freedom). Three repeated-measures factorial analysis of
variance (ANOVA) determined the extent to which the condition (3: control, topographically similar distracting stimulus, and topo­
graphically dissimilar distracting stimulus) and the trial block (2: trial block 1, trial block 2) yielded main effects and interactions on
participants’ latency to respond, accuracy, and SVVB. Partial eta squared (η2) was used as a measure of effect size for main effects and
interactions (small: 0.01, medium: 0.06, larger 0.14; Cohen, 1992). Repeated-measures t-tests with Bonferroni corrected alpha values
(α = 0.006) served as post-hoc analyses to determine specific differences with conditions for the dependent variables. Cohen’s d was
used as a measure of effect size for post-hoc analyses (small: 0.2, medium: 0.5, large: 0.8; Cohen, 1992).
Distributions of preference were analyzed using a Chi-Square Goodness of Fit analysis. This is a non-parametric statistical analysis
that determines the extent to which an observed distribution significantly differs from an expected null distribution.

Fig. 1. Participants’ mean latency across conditions and trial blocks. Bars indicate mean measures for each trial block; data points in between bars
indicate overall mean measures. Lines and asterisks indicate significant differences between trial blocks or conditions (*** = p < 0.006).

5
M.J. Harman et al. Learning and Motivation 80 (2022) 101841

6. Results

Fig. 1 displays participants’ mean latency to respond across conditions. Across all conditions, participants’ mean latency to respond
decreased between trial block 1 and trial block 2. The topographically similar and dissimilar stimulus conditions yielded equal mean
changes of M = 0.7 s (SD = 3.7) and M = 0.7 s (SD = 3.4), respectively. The control condition yielded the smallest mean change in
latency to respond of M = 0.5 s (SD = 3.1). The repeated-measures factorial ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of trial block, F
(1,92) = 11.5, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.2. There was not a significant main effect of condition or a significant interaction between condition
and trial block (ps > 0.05). Post hoc analyses revealed a significant difference in the topographically similar condition between
participants’ latency to respond in trial block 1 (M = 9.5, SD = 3.7) and trial block 2 (M = 8.2, SD= 3.6), t (46) = 3.6, p = 0.001, d =
0.5. Thus, the main effect of trial block was best explained by the significant change in participants’ latencies to respond in the
topographically similar condition.
Fig. 2 displays participants’ mean response accuracy across conditions. Across all conditions, participants’ mean response accuracy
increased between trial block 1 and trial block 2. The topographically similar condition yielded the greatest mean change in response
accuracy of M = 7.6% (SD = 0.2). The topographically dissimilar condition produced a mean change in response accuracy of M = 6.8%
(SD = 0.2). The control condition showed the smallest mean change in response accuracy of M = 2.2% (SD = 0.3). Similar to the
latency analyses, the repeated-measures factorial ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of trial block, F (1,92) = 8.3, p = 0.006, η2
= 0.2. There was not a significant main effect of condition or a significant interaction between condition and trial block (ps > 0.05).
Post hoc analyses revealed a significant difference in the topographically similar condition between participants’ response accuracy in
trial block 1 (M = 81.3%, SD = 0.2) and trial block 2 (M = 88.9%, SD = 0.2), t (46) = 2.9, p = 0.005, d = 0.4. Thus, the main effect of
trial block was best explained by the significant change in participants’ accuracy in the topographically similar condition.
Fig. 3 displays participants’ mean percent of trials with SVVB. Participants engaged in elevated levels of SVVB for both trial blocks
during the topographically similar and dissimilar conditions relative to the control condition. The control condition had the largest
change in SVVB between trial block 1 and trial block 2 with a mean change of 5.1% of trials (SD = 0.2). The topographically similar
condition produced a mean change of 3.4% of trials (SD = 0.1), and the topographically dissimilar condition showed no mean change
in SVVB between trial blocks. The repeated-measures factorial ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of condition (F [2,92] = 5.6,
p < 0.05, η2 = 0.1) and trial block (F [1,92] = 4.6, p = 0.005, η2 = 0.1). There was not a significant interaction between condition and
trial block. This indicates that there were significant differences in mean SVVB across (a) conditions independent of trial blocks and (b)
trial blocks independent of condition.
For the 31 participants who reported their preference for conditions (topographically similar or dissimilar auditory stimuli), 77.4%
(n = 24) of participants reported preference for the topographically dissimilar condition. This represents a significant departure from
the expected distribution of preference for the two conditions, Х 2 = 9.3, p = 0.002.

7. Discussion

The current study extends previous research by analyzing changes in performance within a session in the context of topographically
similar and dissimilar distracting auditory stimuli. We found significant changes in latency and accuracy between trial block 1 and trial
block 2 in the topographically similar condition. This finding indicates that within the context of a single experimental session,
participants learned strategies to efficiently perform the arithmetic task in the presence of topographical similar distracting auditory
stimuli.
These findings, though paradoxical, do align with the outcomes from previous studies on the effects of distracting stimuli on task

Fig. 2. Participants’ mean response accuracy across conditions and trial blocks. Bars indicate mean measures for each trial block; data points in
between bars indicate overall mean measures. Lines and asterisks indicate significant differences between trial blocks or conditions
(*** = p < 0.006).

6
M.J. Harman et al. Learning and Motivation 80 (2022) 101841

Fig. 3. Participants mean percent of trials with spontaneous vocal verbal behavior (SVVB). Bars indicate mean measures for each trial block; data
points in between bars indicate overall mean measures.

performance (e.g., Connell et al., 1991; Griffin & Wright, 2009; May, 1999; Sanders & Baron, 1975). In these studies, participants often
performed better in conditions in which topographically similar distracting stimuli were present during task performance. It remains
unclear the exact mechanism that enhances task performance in the context of topographically similar distracting stimuli. One pos­
sibility is that the presence of the distracting stimuli serves as an establishing operation to task performance (e.g., Sanders & Baron,
1975). A second possibility is that participants learn to engage in different response strategies for different contexts. This second
possibility aligns with the speculation that mechanisms assist the individual in (a) monitoring the context in which tasks are per­
formed, and (b) allocating attentional resources to facilitate task performance in certain contexts (Brown, 1997). Accordingly, the
allocation of facilitating attention resources does not seem to take away from the available resources necessary for task performance.
The availability of additional resources may the engender different response strategies. Future research could start to address these
speculations by requiring participants to think aloud (e.g., Harman et al., 2021; Hayes et al., 1998). This would allow for measure­
ments of response strategies (e.g., frequencies of repeating oneself [self-echoics], repeating the experimenter [echoics]) across the
different conditions. Using a think-aloud methodology, researchers could observe how and whether response strategies differ across
conditions with topographically similar and dissimilar distracting stimuli. For example, participants might emit higher relative fre­
quencies of echoic and self-echoic responses in topographically similar conditions and higher relative frequencies of intraverbal re­
sponses in topographically dissimilar conditions.
The results of the current study also replicate previous research in that SVVB was observed to greater degrees when auditory stimuli
were present during the response interval. Though the findings were not statistically significant, participants engaged in the highest
levels of SVVB in the presence of topographically similar distracting auditory stimuli, particularly in the first five trials of the
experiment. As Kodak et al. (2018) discussed, a topographically similar distracting stimulus may alter the value of the response
products of SVVB and evoke SVVB because the participant may be better able to respond to oneself as a listener. However, after
repeated exposure to distracting auditory stimuli, participants may have learned to engage in equally effective yet less effortful, covert
mediating verbal behavior thereby reducing the value of response products produced by SVVB during the last five trials of the
experiment. This conclusion is speculative and future research should seek to identify a more definitive functional relationship be­
tween environmental events, response effort, and SVVB (see Plavnick & Normand, 2013 for a review of functional analyses of verbal
behavior).
In the current investigation, a visual discriminative stimulus (i.e., the arithmetic problem) was present throughout the response
interval, whereas the presence of the visual discriminative stimulus was manipulated within and across conditions in Kodak et al.
(2018). The current results and those of Kodak et al. (2018) suggest that the inclusion of the visual discriminative stimulus may have
reduced the distracting effects of the auditory stimuli on response latency, accuracy and SVVB. That is, participants could constantly
reference the visual discriminative stimulus to evoke relevant mediating verbal behavior necessary to solve the arithmetic problem.
Furthermore, the visual discriminative stimulus may have occasioned correspondence checks (Bevill-Davis et al., 2004; Risley & Hart,
1968) between participants’ mediating verbal behavior and the arithmetic problem. For example, while solving the arithmetic
problem, “23 + 17 + 6,” a participant may have engaged in a faulty covert echoic response of “fifty” due to the distracting auditory
stimulus. Referencing the visual stimulus, the participant could then readily discriminate that their covert response, “fifty” was the
result of faulty echoic behavior and not an appropriate mediating verbal response to the overall solution. Following the correspon­
dence check to the visual stimulus, the participant could then reengage in covert mediating responses to accurately solve the problem.
Future research should continue to identify the conditions under which topographically similar and dissimilar distracting stimuli exert
effects on task performance.
When asked, more than 75% of the participants reported that they would prefer to answer arithmetic problems in the future while
reading passages were played (topographically dissimilar condition). This preference may be controlled by the response effort of

7
M.J. Harman et al. Learning and Motivation 80 (2022) 101841

strategies evoked in the presence of topographically similar distracting stimuli rather than by task performance. For example, par­
ticipants may have a history of completing arithmetic problems when topographically dissimilar auditory stimuli (e.g., environmental
sounds, quite conversations) are present. For this reason, it may be less effortful to perform a task in the presence of topographically
dissimilar distracting stimuli. If this is the case, it may indicate that participants could discriminate when task-facilitating mechanisms
were activated. Conversely, participants may not have an extensive history of completing arithmetic problems in the presence of
topographically similar auditory stimuli (e.g., people saying numbers). For this reason, it may be more effortful to perform a task in the
presence of topographically similar distracting stimuli. This interpretation is speculative and subject to further investigation. Future
researchers could use concurrent-chains arrangements (e.g., Hanratty & Hanley, 2021) to directly measure preference for topo­
graphically similar or topographically dissimilar auditory distractor stimuli. Further, future researchers may explore methods to
experimentally establish differential histories of reinforcement (e.g., Drifke et al., 2019; Gifford et al., 2021) for echoing stimuli of
different topographies prior to exposing participants to experimental tasks in which a distracting stimulus is presented during a
response interval. Further, researchers could then evaluate preference (a) as a function of different histories of reinforcement and (b)
performance in experimental tasks.
There were several limitations in the current study. First, it is not clear if our experimental manipulations reliably disrupted or
blocked covert verbal behavior. That is, because we could not directly observe covert behavior, we had to rely on indirect methods
such as response latency and accuracy. This is a limitation shared by many investigations that attempt to indirectly evaluate verbal
mediating behavior. Methods have since been developed and reliably used to ameliorate this limitation such as programming blocking
tasks that are topographically similar to the target skill to evaluate the effects on verbal mediation (e.g., Clough et al., 2016).
A second limitation concerns the experimental task: completing an arithmetic problem. We sought to assess the effects of topo­
graphically similar and dissimilar auditory stimuli on participants’ performance of completing arithmetic problems. A more complete
analysis would have also included experimental tasks that involved reading passages for comprehension (e.g., Connell et al., 1991;
Griffin & Wright, 2009; May, 1999). With those data, more comprehensive conclusions could be drawn on the effects of programming
topographically similar and dissimilar distracting auditory stimuli during response intervals. Thus, our results should be interpreted
with respect to the experimental task.
A third limitation concerns the experimental design and data analysis strategies. With the modified multielement design, there is an
increased probability of carryover effects (Barlow & Hersen, 1984). Participants may have used similar response strategies across trials
regardless of the level of the independent variable. This could occur because of indiscriminable conditions. If this were the case, it
would be inappropriate to use data analysis strategies that assume independence between levels of the independent variable (Gravetter
et al., 2021). Rather, it might be more appropriate to view the entire experimental session as a single-case experiment and use methods
of visual analysis. Post-experiment measures of condition preference seem to indicate participants discriminated the different con­
ditions. Nonetheless, future research could conduct analyses at the single-case level (e.g., visual analysis of trial-by-trial data on ac­
curacy and latency) to add additional evidence to the effects of topographically similar and dissimilar distractor stimuli.
The results of the current study replicate those of Kodak et al. (2018) and Harman et al. (2021) in that there was no significant effect
of topographically similar (ref. Kodak et al., 2018) or topographically dissimilar (ref. Harman et al., 2021) auditory stimuli on par­
ticipants’ overall performance under certain conditions. However, the results of the current study do extend the findings of previous
research by underscoring the importance of within-session analyses as participants’ performance was differentially affected across
trials as a result of repeated exposure to topographically similar and dissimilar distracting auditory stimuli. Future studies should
continue to analyze within-session data to measure molecular changes in behavior that might otherwise be missed by exclusively
measuring overall molar changes in behavior.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

Abbott, M., Good, R.H., III, Gray, J.S., Powell-Smith, K.A., & Warnock, A.N. (2018). Acadience reading 7–9. Acadience Learning. (Original work available as Content Area
Reading Indicators).
Anderson, B. A., Folk, C. L., & Courtney, S. M. (2016). Neural mechanisms of goal-contingent task disengagement: Response-irrelevant stimuli active the default mode
network. Cortex, 81, 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.05.006
Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single-case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Bevill-Davis, A., Clees, T. J., & Glast, D. L. (2004). Correspondence training: A review of the literature. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 1, 13–26.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100276
Bloem, I., & Heij, W. La (2003). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access in language production.
Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 468–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00503-X
Brown, S. W. (1997). Attentional resources in timing: Interference effects in concurrent temporal and nontemporal working memory tasks. Attention Perception &
Psychophysics, 59(7), 1118–1140. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03205526
Clapp, W. C., Rubens, M. T., & Gazzaley, A. (2010). Mechanism of working memory disruption by external interference. Cerebral Cortex, 20, 859–872. https://doi.org/
10.1093/cercor/bhp150
Clough, C. W., Meyer, C. S., & Miguel, C. F. (2016). The effects of blocking and joint control training on sequencing visual stimuli. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 32,
242–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-016-0067-1
Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Connell, S. L., Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1991). Age and reading: The impact of distraction. Psychology of Aging, 6, 533–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-
7974.6.4.533
Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (2019). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education.

8
M.J. Harman et al. Learning and Motivation 80 (2022) 101841

Drifke, M. A., Tiger, J. H., & Gifford, M. R. (2019). Shifting preferences for choice-making opportunities through histories of differential reinforcer quality. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 52(1), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.515
Fahmie, T. A., & Hanley, G. P. (2008). Progressing toward data intimacy: A review of within-session data analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(3),
319–331. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-319
Gifford, M. R., Drifke, M. A., Tiger, J. H., & Caldwell, K. (2021). Shifting preferences for choice-making opportunities through histories of differential reinforcer
immediacy. The Psychological Record. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-020-00452-9
Gravetter, F. J., Wallnau, L. B., Forzano, L. B., & Witnauer, J. E. (2021). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning Inc.
Griffin, J., & Wright, P. (2009). Older readers can be distracting by embellishing graphics in text. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 740–757. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09541440802155627
Gutierrez, R. D. (2006). The role of rehearsal in joint control. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393038
Hanratty, L. A., & Hanley, G. P. (2021). A preference analysis of reinforcer variation and choice. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(3), 1062–1074. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jaba.835
Harman, M. J., Kodak, T., Bohl, L., & Mayland, T. (2021). The effects of competing verbal behavior on performance in a math task. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 37,
57–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-021-00145-6
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R.T. (1998). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation
(22 ed., pp. 193–225). Academic Press.
Hayes, S. C., White, D., & Bissett, R. T. (1998). Protocol analysis and the “Silent Dog” method of analyzing the impact of self-generated rules. The Analysis of Verbal
Behavior, 15, 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392923
Irfan, M., Sa’dijah, C., Ishartono, N., Widodo, S. A., Rahman, A. A., & Hudha, M. N. (2019). Interference in solving mathematical problems. European Union Digital
Library. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.19-10-2018.2281319
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kodak, T., Bergmann, S., LeBlanc, B., Harman, M. J., & Ayazi, M. (2018). Examination of the effects of auditory and textual stimuli on response accuracy and latency
during a math task and tangram puzzle. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 34, 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-018-0098-x
May, C. P. (1999). Syncrony effects in cognitive: The costs and a benefit. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 6, 142–147. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210822
Mitchell, D., Luo, Q., Mondillo, K., Vythilingam, M., Finger, E. C., & Blair, R. (2008). The interference of operant task performance by emotional distracters: An
antagonistic relationship between the amygdala and frontoparietal cortices. NeuroImage, 40(2), 859–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.08.002
Moore, J. (2009). Why the radical behaviorist conception of private events is interesting, relevant, and important. Behavior and Philosophy, 37, 21–37.
Nicholas, C. A., & Cohen, A. L. (2016). The effect of interruption on the decision-making process. Judgement and Decision Making, 11(6), 611–629.
Nosik, M. R., Williams, W. L., Binder, C., & Carr, J. E. (2017). Methodological refinements in the behavior-analytic study of distraction: A preliminary investigation.
European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 18, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2016.1230967
Plavnick, J. B., & Normand, M. P. (2013). Functional analysis of verbal behavior: A brief review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(1), 349–353. https://doi.org/
10.1002/jaba.1
Risley, T. R., & Hart, B. (1968). Developing correspondence between the nonverbal and verbal behavior of preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1,
267–281. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-267
Sanders, G. S., & Baron, R. S. (1975). The motivating effects of distraction on task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(6), 956–963. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.6.956
Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.
SkyPaw Co. Ltd. (2021). Decibel X: dB Sound Level Meter (Version 9.3.3) (Mobile app). Retrieved from 〈https://apps.apple.com/us/app/decibel-x-db-sound-level-meter/
id448155923〉.
Sundberg, C. T., Sundberg, M. L., & Michael, J. (2018). Covert verbal mediation in arbitrary matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 109
(3), 600–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.434
Weeks, J. C., & Hasher, L. (2014). The disruptive – and beneficial – effects of distraction on older adults’ cognitive performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–6,
10.33.89/psyg.2014.00133.
Wei, T., & Schnur, T. T. (2016). Long-term interference at the semantic level: Evidence from blocked-cyclic picture matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology
Learning Memory and Cognition, 42(1), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000164
Zickerick, B., Thӧnes, S., Kobald, S. O., Washer, E., Schneider, D., & Küper, K. (2020). Differential effects of interruptions and distractions on working memory
processes in an ERP study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00084
Zimmer, J. W., & Brachulis-Raymond, J. (1978). Effects of distracting stimuli on complex information processing. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 791–794. https://doi.
org/10.2466/pms.1978.46.3.791