1. Introduction Results
Discussion
References
Kelly Allen, Tamiko Azuma, & Karen Pittenger
Arizona State University
Procedure
Participants
Thirteen military veterans currently enrolled at Arizona State University, community college, or
college preparatory programs, participated in this study. All participants completed a questionnaire
which included questions about their academic, medical, and military service history. Eight typical
veterans reported no history of mTBI or concussion (Mean age = 29.6 yrs, SD=3.6) and five
veterans reported a history of mTBI or concussion (Mean age = 31.2 yrs, SD=4.0). All participants
spoke English fluently and provided informed consent prior to participating in the study. The
participants were administered the Rey’s Auditory Verbal Learning Task (Schmidt, 1996) as part of
a larger test battery.
Rey’s Auditory Verbal Learning Task
• What is the effect of auditory distraction on verbal memory performance in military veterans?
• Does auditory distraction affect verbal memory in veterans with mTBI more than typical veterans?
An increasing number of military veterans are enrolling in college and/or transitioning into the
civilian workforce. Because of the nature of their military service, veterans are at a higher risk for
service-related conditions, including mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD), and social anxiety disorder. Mild TBI is of particular concern because the
condition can go undiagnosed, yet the cognitive consequences can be significant. Common
cognitive problems associated with mTBI are deficits in attention, working memory, and episodic
memory. One challenge in evaluating veterans with mTBI is that their cognitive deficits may be
relatively subtle, only arising under more demanding circumstances. Although clinical cognitive
assessment is performed in controlled settings, situations in classrooms and work settings usually
involve the processing of complex information under distracting situations. This study examined
how verbal memory is affected by auditory distraction in veterans with and without mTBI.
Although auditory distraction affected verbal memory in both typical veterans and veterans with
mTBI, the groups showed different performance patterns. For typical veterans, the effect of
distraction on memory interacted with Trial type, which reflected the fact that distraction affected
performance only in the delayed recall condition. For veterans with mTBI, the effect size of auditory
distraction on verbal memory was large, with distraction detrimentally affecting performance across
all trial types. Overall, the results indicate that auditory distraction disrupts verbal memory retrieval
more in veterans with mTBI relative to veteran peers with no mTBI. Data collection for this study is
ongoing and larger sample sizes will allow for stronger hypothesis testing.
Research Questions
Method
The Effect of Auditory Distraction on Verbal Memory
in Military Veterans with and without mTBI
The examiner reads a
list of 15 words.
The participant recalls
the words in any order.
Trials 1 through 4
The examiner reads a
different list of 15
words.
The participant recalls
the words in any order.
The participant
recalls the original
list of 15 words.
Intervening List Delayed Recall
20 minutes
Distraction Conditions
No Distraction
Words recalled with
no noise
Auditory Distraction
Words recalled with
multi-talker babble
played over
headphones
LIST A
DRUM
CURTAIN
BELL
COFFEE
SCHOOL
PARENT
MOON
GARDEN
HAT
FARMER
NOSE
TURKEY
COLOR
HOUSE
RIVER
LIST B
DESK
RANGER
BIRD
SHOE
STOVE
MOUNTAIN
GLASSES
TOWEL
CLOUD
BOAT
LAMB
GUN
PENCIL
CHURCH
RISH
LIST A
DRUM
CURTAIN
BELL
COFFEE
SCHOOL
PARENT
MOON
GARDEN
HAT
FARMER
NOSE
TURKEY
COLOR
HOUSE
RIVER
The data analyses focused on the proportion of words correctly recalled across the trials and
distraction conditions. Given the small sample sizes (and low degrees of freedom), effect sizes were
evaluated using partial eta-squared (2) following Cohen’s (1988) interpretation.
3 (Trial) X 2 (Distraction) Analysis of Variance
Effect of Trial (F(2,14) = 7.66, p<.01, partial 2 = .52): large effect size
Effect of Distraction (F(1, 7) = 1.10, p=.33, partial 2 = .14: medium effect size
Test X Distraction Interaction F(2,14) = 1.36, p=.29, partial 2 = .16: medium effect size
3(Trial) X 2 (Distraction) Analysis of Variance
Effect of Trial (F(2,8) = 11.56, p<.01, partial 2 = .74): large effect size
Effect of Distraction (F(1, 4) = 4.94, p=.09, partial 2 = .55): large effect size
Test X Distraction Interaction (F<1, partial 2 = .02): no effect
Cohen, J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schmidt M. (1996). Rey Auditory and Verbal Learning Test: A Handbook. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services, 1996.