Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-7
Investigating the effects of exposure to office noise types on cognitive function and noise annoyance based on personality characteristics: An experimental study
No comparative research has investigated the effect of tonal noise and background speech on cognitive functions. Therefore, this study aims to determine the impacts of tonal noise and background speech noise on cognitive function and noise annoyance based on personality traits. Twenty-five male students of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences with normal and healthy hearing participated in 4 simulated 50-min scenarios in an indoor environment. The cognitive functions including reaction time, sustained attention, and working memory were measured by PVT, CPT, and n-Back tests respectively. At the end of each test session, the noise annoyance was evaluated by the ISO-15666 questionnaire. According to the results of the repeated measures ANOVA test, a significant difference in mean reaction time in the n-Back and PVT tests was observed (p < .05). The significant difference in mean correct response in the n-Back test was not observed. The highest rate of perceived noise annoyance has been observed in exposure to 65 dB tonal noise with a mean and standard deviation of 41.52 ± 7.56. A positive correlation was observed between the reaction time of PVT and CPT tests and the neuroticism dimension, and its values were reported as 0.410 and 0.423, respectively. Tonal noise and background speech can reduce cognitive performance and acoustic comfort considering noise sensitivity and age of participants. These have special rules for causes of employees’ distraction in office room.
MengQAnYYangD. Effects of acoustic environment on design work performance based on multitask visual cognitive performance in office space. Build Environ2021; 205: 108296. DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108296.
2.
AbbasiAMMotamedzadeMAliabadiMStudy of the physiological and mental health effects caused by exposure to low-frequency noise in a simulated control room. Build Acoust2018; 25(3): 233–248. DOI: 10.1177/1351010X18779518.
3.
RahmaniRAliabadiMGolmohammadiR, et al.Body physiological responses of city bus drivers subjected to noise and vibration exposure in working environment. Heliyon2022; 8(8): e10329. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10329.
4.
RahmaniRAliabadiMGolmohammadiR, et al.Evaluation of cognitive performance of city bus drivers with respect to noise and vibration exposure. Acoust Aust2021; 49(3): 529–539. DOI: 10.1007/s40857-021-00248-z.
5.
FiskWJ. Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their relationship with building energy efficiency. Annu Rev Energy Environ2000; 25(1): 537–566. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.537.
6.
Al HorrYArifMKaushikA, et al.Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: a review of the literature. Build Environ2016; 105: 369–389. DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.06.001.
7.
LoveJSungWFrancisAL. Psychophysiological responses to potentially annoying heating, ventilation, and air conditioning noise during mentally demanding work. J Acoust Soc Am2021; 150(4): 3149–3163. DOI: 10.1121/10.0006383.
8.
JafariMJKhosrowabadiRKhodakarimS, et al.The effect of noise exposure on cognitive performance and brain activity patterns. Open Access Maced J Med Sci2019; 7(17): 2924–2931. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.742.
9.
GrenzebachJRomanusE. Quantifying the effect of noise on cognitive processes: a review of psychophysiological correlates of workload. Noise Health2022; 24(115): 199–214. DOI: 10.4103/nah.nah_34_22.
10.
LiuHHeHQinJ. Does background sounds distort concentration and verbal reasoning performance in open-plan office?Appl Acoust2021; 172: 107577. DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2020.107577.
11.
LambSKwokKCS. A longitudinal investigation of work environment stressors on the performance and wellbeing of office workers. Appl Ergon2016; 52: 104–111. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.010.
12.
LandströmUÅkerlundEKjellbergA, et al.Exposure levels, tonal components, and noise annoyance in working environments. Environ Int1995; 21(3): 265–275. DOI: 10.1016/0160-4120(95)00017-F.
13.
ANSI/ASA S1.13-2020. Measuring sound pressure levels in air, Acoustical Society of America Standards. Secretariat 1305 Walt Whitman Road, Suite 300 Melville, New York.
14.
SadeghianMYazdaniradSMousaviSM, et al.Effect of tonal noise and task difficulty on electroencephalography and cognitive performance. Int J Occup Saf Ergon2022; 28(3): 1353–1361. DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2021.1901432.
15.
LeeJFrancisJMWangLM. How tonality and loudness of noise relate to annoyance and task performance. Noise Control Eng J2017; 65(2): 71–82. DOI: 10.3397/1/376427.
16.
RenzTLeistnerPLieblA. Rating level as a method to assess the impact of speech noise on cognitive performance and annoyance in offices. Acta Acust United Acust2019; 105(6): 1114–1126. DOI: 10.3813/aaa.919390.
17.
SadeghianMShekarizadehSAbbasiM, et al.The use of artificial neural networks to predict tonal sound annoyance based on noise metrics and psychoacoustics parameters. Noise Control Eng J2022; 70(4): 309–322. DOI: 10.3397/1/377025.
18.
HaapakangasAHongistoVHyönäJ, et al.Effects of unattended speech on performance and subjective distraction: the role of acoustic design in open-plan offices. Appl Acoust2014; 86: 1–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.04.018.
19.
Di BlasioSShtrepiLPuglisiGE, et al.A cross-sectional survey on the impact of irrelevant speech noise on annoyance, mental health and well-being, performance and occupants’ behavior in shared and open-plan offices. Int J Environ Res Publ Health2019; 16(2): 280. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16020280.
20.
VarjoJHongistoVHaapakangasA, et al.Simultaneous effects of irrelevant speech, temperature and ventilation rate on performance and satisfaction in open-plan offices. J Environ Psychol2015; 44: 16–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.08.001.
21.
LeeYNelsonECFlynnMJ, et al.Exploring soundscaping options for the cognitive environment in an open-plan office. Build Acoust2020; 27(3): 185–202. DOI: 10.1177/1351010X20909464.
22.
KangSOuD. The effects of speech intelligibility on work performance in Chinese open-plan offices: a laboratory study. Acta Acust United Acust2019; 105(1): 9–13. DOI: 10.3813/AAA.919281.
23.
LeeEYJerrettMRossZ, et al.Assessment of traffic-related noise in three cities in the United States. Environ Res2014; 132: 182–189. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.03.005.
24.
DerakhshanJMotamedzadehMGolmohammadiR, et al.Comparative study of cognitive functions of introverts and extroverts in three situations before, during and after exposure to low frequency sound. Iran Occup Health2021; 18(1): 24. DOI: 10.52547/IOH.18.1.356.
25.
MasulloMMaffeiLSorrentinoF, et al.Effects of fan coils noise on cognitive performances in offices. 25th Int Congr Sound Vib 2018, ICSV 2018 Hiroshima Call2018; 6(1): 3724–3731.
26.
BeheshtiMHTabanESamaeiSE, et al.The influence of personality traits and gender on noise annoyance in laboratory studies. Pers Indiv Differ2019; 148: 95–100. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.027.
27.
AbbasiMTokhiMOFalahatiM, et al.Effect of personality traits on sensitivity, annoyance and loudness perception of low- and high-frequency noise. J Low Freq Noise Vib Act Control2021; 40(2): 643–655. DOI: 10.1177/1461348420945818.
28.
KishikawaHMatsuiTUchiyamaI, et al.The development of Weinstein’s noise sensitivity scale. Noise Health2006; 8(33): 154–160. DOI: 10.4103/1463-1741.34703.
29.
ISO 15666:2003. Assessment of noise annoyance by means of social and socio–acoustic surveys. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
30.
RammstedtBKemperCJKleinMC, et al.A short scale for assessing the big five dimensions of personality. Methoden, Daten Anal (MDA)2013; 7(2): 233–249.
31.
RadoszJ. Effects of tonal noise on workers’ annoyance and performance. Noise Health2021; 23(111): 117–127. DOI: 10.4103/nah.NAH_28_20.
32.
RyherdEEWang TheLM. The effects of noise from building mechanical systems with tonal components on human performance and perception. Build Eng2010; 116(PART 2): 541–552.
33.
KostallariKParizetEChevretP, et al.Irrelevant speech effect in open plan offices: comparison of two models explaining the decrease in performance by speech intelligibility and attempt to reduce interindividual differences of the mental workload by task customisation. Appl Acoust2020; 161: 107180. DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2019.107180.
34.
LiuLDuffyVG. Investigating cognitive workload in irrelevant speech-based information communication with visual distractions: pleasant or distracted?Int J Ind Ergon2024; 99: 103539. DOI: 10.1016/j.ergon.2023.103539.
35.
MurphyDRBaileyHPearsonM, et al.The irrelevant speech effect among younger and older adults: the influence of background noises on reading comprehension. Exp Aging Res2018; 44(2): 162–178. DOI: 10.1080/0361073X.2017.1422561.
36.
RadunJMaulaHTervahartialaIK, et al.The effects of irrelevant speech on physiological stress, cognitive performance, and subjective experience – focus on heart rate variability. Int J Psychophysiol2024; 200: 112352. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2024.112352.
37.
DiGQZhouXXChenXW. Annoyance response to low frequency noise with tonal components: a case study on transformer noise. Appl Acoust2015; 91: 40–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.12.003.
38.
SongGDaviesPLiuY. Development of metric models to predict annoyance due to tonal office noise. Sci Technol Built Environ2022; 28(8): 1054–1068. DOI: 10.1080/23744731.2022.2096974.
39.
GolmohammadiRAliabadiMNezamiT. An experimental study of acoustic comfort in open space banks based on speech intelligibility and noise annoyance measures. Arch Acoust Q2017; 42(2): 333–345. DOI: 10.1515/aoa-2017-0035.
40.
WöstmannMErbJKreitewolfJ, et al.Personality captures dissociations of subjective versus objective hearing in noise. R Soc Open Sci2021; 8(11): 210881. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.210881.
41.
ParanjpeAFurnhamAMcClellandA. The effect of distraction on cognitive performance as a function of anxiety. Psychology2023; 14(01): 90–101. DOI: 10.4236/psych.2023.141006.
42.
MoradiGOmidiLVosoughiS, et al.Effects of noise on selective attention: the role of introversion and extraversion. Appl Acoust2019; 146: 213–217. DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2018.11.029.
43.
GolmohammadiRDarvishiEShafiee MotlaghM, et al.Role of individual and personality traits in occupational noise-induced psychological effects. Appl Acoust2021; 173: 107699. DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2020.107699.
