![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Auditory preemption applies to the case where a person is engaged in an ongoing visual task and intermittently is required to engage in an additional discrete task. Some research has suggested that an interruption from an auditory discrete task is more damaging to the ongoing visual task than an equivalent interruption from a visual discrete task – a phenomenon that has been described formally as Auditory Preemption Theory. In this critical comment, I review the definition and history of the notion of auditory preemption and survey the most cited literature that has purported to show auditory preemption. I argue that the foundational evidence of auditory preemption has been characterized by shortcomings that weaken or preclude the conclusion that auditory preemption occurred. I argue that there is little evidence that the effect described by Auditory Preemption Theory is a modality effect – findings across laboratory studies appear approximately consistent with what would be expected due to sampling error if no auditory preemption effect exists. Plausible alternate candidates to explain phenomena that have been attributed to auditory preemption include startle responses, cognitive demands associated with speech generation in communication tasks, and possibly social demands associated with human communications. Suggestions from the open science movement to improve methods and theory are applied to the problem of building theories of interruption modalities. These suggestions include methodological reforms and making more explicit auxiliary assumptions about theories.
Acknowledgments
An abstract of parts of this manuscript was presented at APCAM 2022 in Boston, MA.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).