he lab report topic for this year is on 'the effect of background music on reading performance' (as described in the first lecture).

PSY2204_lab_report_handout_2023-PSY2204_lab_report_handout_2023-

The PSY2204 lab report assignment (2023) Due date and word limit. Word limit: The reference list is NOT included in the word limit. In-text referencing and sub-headings ARE included in the word limit. The word limit is 1500 words, and markers will be instructed to stop reading any words beyond 1500. Sections to be included in the assignment. Introduction ~750 words Discussion ~750 words *Note that students are NOT to include a method or results section in their assignment submission. These sections are provided to students on page there of this document to assist in the write up of the introduction and discussion section. Students are not required to submit an abstract. *Also note that the number-of-words guidelines shown above for each section are rough guidelines only. Assignment background, and expectations This research aims to investigate if increasing music tempo influences distraction while reading, while also investigating whether working memory ability is related to distraction while reading under difference circumstances. For the first aim, mean differences across the four conditions (i.e., silence, low tempo, moderate tempo, and high tempo) for the dependent variables ‘self-reported distraction’ and ‘quiz score’ will be examined. For the second aim, correlations between the two dependent variables and working memory score will be examined. Expectations/hypotheses for the present study are to be stated separately for the two aims stated here at the end of the introduction section. Some relevant points (and background literature) to help you create your introduction narrative for your assignment: · It is commonly stated in the research literature that listening to music is not ideal when performing tasks which are cognitively demanding (Cheah et al. 2022; Vasilev et al., 2018), due to the additional cognitive demand cognitive demand required to process the additional stimuli (Paas & Van Merrienboer, 2020). · Despite literature suggesting that music can be distracting, survey research has shown that some individuals still often listen to music while they read (Goltz & Sadakata, 2021; Kiss & Linnell, 2023). · Research into the physiological impact of music has demonstrated that music with a faster tempo increases arousal to a greater extent than music with a slower tempo (Rickard, 2004; White & Rickard, 2016). This increase in arousal may improve cognitive performance, as it allows an individual to reach a desired state of alertness for performing cognitive demanding tasks (Franceschini et al. 2020). · Lange et al. (2018) who found that music with a faster tempo led to faster reading time. In contrast, Moreno and Woodruff (2023) found that the faster the music tempo the poorer the performance in reading comprehension. · Some research has demonstrated that higher working memory capacity is associated with better ability to focus when distractions are present, as it helps individuals manage competing stimuli (Beaman, 2004; Christopher & Shelton, 2017; Robison & Unsworth, 2015). It could be that those with a higher working memory capacity are still able to listen to music while they read, without incurring any detrimental effects. PSY2204 Learning, Memory, and Cognition Lab report information School of Arts and Humanities (Psychology) Page 1 References Beaman, C. P. (2004). The irrelevant sound phenomenon revisited: What role for working memory capacity? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30(5), 1106. Cheah, Y., Wong, H. K., Spitzer, M., & Coutinho, E. (2022). Background Music and Cognitive Task Performance: A Systematic Review of Task, Music, and Population Impact. Music & Science, 5, 20592043221134392. https://doi.org/10.1177/20592043221134392 Christopher, E. A., & Shelton, J. T. (2017). Individual differences in working memory predict the effect of music on student performance. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(2), 167-173. Franceschini, S., Lulli, M., Bertoni, S., Gori, S., Angrilli, A., Mancarella, M., Puccio, G., & Facoetti, A. (2020). Caffeine improves text reading and global perception. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 34(3), 315-325. Goltz, F., & Sadakata, M. (2021). Do you listen to music while studying? A portrait of how people use music to optimize their cognitive performance. Acta Psychologica, 220, 103417. Kiss, L., & Linnell, K. J. (2023). Making sense of background music listening habits: An arousal and task-complexity account [Article]. Psychology of Music, 51(1), 89-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/03057356221089017 Lange, E. B., Pieczykolan, A., Trukenbrod, H. A., & Huestegge, L. (2018). The rhythm of cognition - Effects of an auditory beat on oculomotor control in reading and sequential scanning. J Eye Mov Res, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.11.2.9 Moreno, M., & Woodruff, E. (2023). Examining the effects of tempo in background music on adolescent learners’ reading comprehension performance: employing a multimodal approach. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09639-3 Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2020). Cognitive-Load Theory: Methods to Manage Working Memory Load in the Learning of Complex Tasks. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29, 394 - 398. Rickard, N. S. (2004). Intense emotional responses to music: A test of the physiological arousal hypothesis [Article]. Psychology of Music, 32(4), 371-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735604046096 Robison, M. K., & Unsworth, N. (2015). Working memory capacity offers resistance to mind‐wandering and external distraction in a context‐specific manner. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(5), 680-690. Vasilev, M. R., Kirkby, J. A., & Angele, B. (2018). Auditory Distraction During Reading: A Bayesian Meta-Analysis of a Continuing Controversy [Article]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(5), 567-597. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617747398 White, E. L., & Rickard, N. S. (2016). Emotion response and regulation to “happy” and “sad” music stimuli: Partial synchronization of subjective and physiological responses [Article]. Musicae Scientiae, 20(1), 11-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864915608911 Method section Participants 101 ECU psychology students contributed data. Procedure The data collection comprised of two phases. In phase 1, participants completed a working memory task online via the software Inquisit. The specific working memory task used is the automated operation span task (OSPAN) (Unsworth et al., 2005). This task uses a combination of simple maths problems and presentation of letter strings to obtain a single overall working memory score. In phase 2, participants had four readings with an associated 15-item quiz. 10 minutes were provided to do the reading, and an additional 10 minutes to do the quiz. The readings consisted of portions of text from the lecture summary readings that are part of the PSY2204 unit. There were four different music conditions participants were exposed to across the four readings: Silence (no music), low-tempo music, mid-tempo music, and high-tempo music. The music played during the entire 10-minute period allocated to do the reading. After completing the reading (and just prior to do the quiz), participants were asked ‘please select how the music that was played impacted your distraction’ rated on a 5-point scale of (1) strongly reduced (2) slightly reduced (3) did not impact (4) slightly increased (5) strongly increased. The presentation order of the four different readings, and the music condition, was fully randomised across all participants. Results The means and standard deviations for the quiz scores and self-reported distraction scores are provided in Table 1. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on the quiz scores, with no significant effect of music condition, F(3,300) = 1.46, p = .24. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on the self-reported distraction scores, with an overall significant effect of music condition revealed, F(2,198) = 23.91, p < .001,="" partial="" eta="" squared=".20." follow="" up="" paired="" samples="" t-tests="" revealed="" a="" pattern="" of="" results="" where="" the="" high-tempo="" condition="" was="" on="" average="" reported="" to="" produce="" the="" significantly="" highest="" level="" of="" distraction="" compared="" to="" both="" the="" mid-tempo="" condition="" (t(100)="4.20," p="">< .001,="" d="1.43)" and="" the="" low-tempo="" condition="" (t(100)="7.11," p="">< .001, d = 1.28). the mid-tempo condition on average produced significantly more distraction than the low- tempo condition (t(100) = 7.11, p = .006, d = 1.32). all these cohen’s d effect sizes are large effects based on cohen’s (1988) guidelines for interpretation. of the 101 participants, 39 had ospan working memory scores from phase 1 that were able to be matched to their phase 2 data. based on this sub-sample of 39 participants, pearson correlations were calculated between the working memory score and the quiz score and distraction score variables, for a total of seven correlation values. all correlations were of negligible magnitude (i.e., all less than .23) and were not statistically significant. table 1. means and standard deviations (sd in brackets) for the quiz score and distraction score variables across the music conditions (n = 101). condition quiz score distraction score silence 8.70 (3.08) not applicable low-tempo 8.64 (2.21) 3.26 (1.09) mid-tempo 8.90 (2.74) 3.57 (1.09) high-tempo 8.25 (2.74) 4.17 (1.13) references cohen, j. (1988). statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). hillsdale, nj: lawrence erlbaum associates, publishers. unsworth, n., heitz, r. p., schrock, j. c., & engle, r. w. (2005). an automated version of the operation span task. behavior research methods, 37(3), 498-505. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192720 .001,="" d="1.28)." the="" mid-tempo="" condition="" on="" average="" produced="" significantly="" more="" distraction="" than="" the="" low-="" tempo="" condition="" (t(100)="7.11," p=".006," d="1.32)." all="" these="" cohen’s="" d="" effect="" sizes="" are="" large="" effects="" based="" on="" cohen’s="" (1988)="" guidelines="" for="" interpretation.="" of="" the="" 101="" participants,="" 39="" had="" ospan="" working="" memory="" scores="" from="" phase="" 1="" that="" were="" able="" to="" be="" matched="" to="" their="" phase="" 2="" data.="" based="" on="" this="" sub-sample="" of="" 39="" participants,="" pearson="" correlations="" were="" calculated="" between="" the="" working="" memory="" score="" and="" the="" quiz="" score="" and="" distraction="" score="" variables,="" for="" a="" total="" of="" seven="" correlation="" values.="" all="" correlations="" were="" of="" negligible="" magnitude="" (i.e.,="" all="" less="" than="" .23)="" and="" were="" not="" statistically="" significant.="" table="" 1.="" means="" and="" standard="" deviations="" (sd="" in="" brackets)="" for="" the="" quiz="" score="" and="" distraction="" score="" variables="" across="" the="" music="" conditions="" (n="101)." condition="" quiz="" score="" distraction="" score="" silence="" 8.70="" (3.08)="" not="" applicable="" low-tempo="" 8.64="" (2.21)="" 3.26="" (1.09)="" mid-tempo="" 8.90="" (2.74)="" 3.57="" (1.09)="" high-tempo="" 8.25="" (2.74)="" 4.17="" (1.13)="" references="" cohen,="" j.="" (1988).="" statistical="" power="" analysis="" for="" the="" behavioral="" sciences="" (2nd="" ed.).="" hillsdale,="" nj:="" lawrence="" erlbaum="" associates,="" publishers.="" unsworth,="" n.,="" heitz,="" r.="" p.,="" schrock,="" j.="" c.,="" &="" engle,="" r.="" w.="" (2005).="" an="" automated="" version="" of="" the="" operation="" span="" task.="" behavior="" research="" methods,="" 37(3),="" 498-505.="">