The acoustic quality of classrooms is crucial for children’s listening skills and consequently for their learning. Listening abilities in kids are still developing, and an environment with inadequate acoustic characteristics may create additional problems in speech perception and phonetic recognition. Background noise or reverberation may cause auditory processing problems and greater cognitive effort. There are also other elements which can make difficulty in listening and understanding in noisy environments an even more serious problem, such as learning disabilities, mild to severe hearing loss or bilingualism. Therefore, it is important to improve the acoustic quality of the classrooms, taking into account the specific needs of children in terms of signal-to-noise ratio and reverberation time, in order to ensure a proper quality of listening. The aim of this work is to analyse, through the review of previous studies, the impact that the acoustic of classrooms has on children’s listening skills and learning activities.
CrandellCCSmaldinoJJ.Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and with hearing impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch2000; 31(4): 362–370.
2.
HurtigAKeus van de PollMPekkolaEP, et al. Children’s recall of words spoken in their first and second language: effects of signal-to-noise ratio and reverberation time. Front Psychol2016; 6: 2029.
3.
KokkinakisKLoizouPC.The impact of reverberant self-masking and overlap-masking effects on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners (L). J Acoust Soc Am2011; 130(3): 1099–1102.
4.
KlatteMBergströmKLachmannT.Does noise affect learning? A short review on noise effects on cognitive performance in children. Front Psychol2013; 4: 578.
5.
PicouEMGordonJRickettsTA.The effects of noise and reverberation on listening effort in adults with normal hearing. Ear Hear2016; 37(1): 1–13.
6.
YangWBradleyJS.Effects of room acoustics on the intelligibility of speech in classrooms for young children. J Acoust Soc Am2009; 125: 922–933.
7.
HodgsonMNosalEM.Effect of noise and occupancy on optimal reverberation times for speech intelligibility in classrooms. J Acoust Soc Am2002; 111(2): 931–939.
American National Standards Institute/Acoustical Society of America. Acoustical performance criteria, design requirements, and guidelines for schools (ANSI/ASA S12.60-2010). Melville, NY: Acoustical Society of America, 2010.
PicardMBradleyJS.Revisiting speech interference in classrooms. Audiology2001; 40(5): 221–244.
12.
MealingsK.Classroom acoustic conditions: understanding what is suitable through a review of national and international standards, recommendations, and live classroom measurements. Paper presented at the second Australasian Acoustical Societies’ conference, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 9–11November2016.
13.
AstolfiAParatiLD’OrazioD, et al. The new Italian standard UNI 11532 on acoustics for schools. Paper presented at the 23rd international congress on acoustics, Aachen, 9–13September2019.
14.
SatoHBradleyJS.Evaluation of acoustical conditions for speech communication in working elementary school classrooms. J Acoust Soc Am2008; 123: 2064–2077.
15.
ShieldBGreenlandEDockrellJ.Noise in open plan classrooms in primary schools: a review. Noise Health2010; 12: 225–234.
16.
DockrellJEShieldBM.Children’s perceptions of their acoustic environment at school and at home. J Acoust Soc Am2004; 115: 2964–2973.
17.
BarnettDLNicholsACGouldDG.The effects of open space versus traditional on the auditory selective attending skills of elementary school’s children. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch1982; 13: 138–143.
18.
KyzarBL.Comparison of instructional practices in classrooms of different design. Final report, Northwestern State University, Natchitoches, LA, 30January1971.
19.
RonsseLMWangLM.Relationships between unoccupied classroom acoustical conditions and elementary student achievement measured in eastern Nebraska. J Acoust Soc Am2013; 133: 1480–1495.
20.
ElliottLLHammerMASchollME.Fine-grained auditory discrimination in normal children and children with language-learning problems. J Speech Hear Res1989; 32(1): 112–119.
21.
SussmanJECarneyAE.Effects of transition length on the perception of stop consonants by children and adults. J Speech Hear Res1989; 32(1): 151–160.
22.
KlatteMLachmannTMeisM.Effects of noise and reverberation on speech perception and listening comprehension of children and adults in a classroom-like setting. Noise Health2010; 12(49): 270–282.
23.
EdwardsJFoxRARogersCL.Final consonant discrimination in children: effects of phonological disorder, vocabulary size, and articulatory accuracy. J Speech Lang Hear Res2002; 45(2): 231–242.
24.
HeinrichASchneiderBACraikFI.Investigating the influence of continuous babble on auditory short-term memory performance. Q J Exp Psychol2008; 61: 735–751.
25.
PuglisiGEPratoASaccoT, et al. Influence of classroom acoustics on the reading speed: a case study on Italian second-graders. J Acoust Soc Am2018; 144(2): EL144.
26.
Finitzo-HieberTTillmanTW.Room acoustics effects on monosyllabic word discrimination ability for normal and hearing-impaired children. J Speech Hear Res1978; 21(3): 440–458.
27.
NicolosiLHarrymanEKresheckJ.Terminology of communication disorders. 4th ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1996.
28.
ErtmerDJ.Relationships between speech intelligibility and word articulation scores in children with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res2010; 53(5): 1075–1086.
29.
NeumanACHochbergI.Children’s perception of speech in reverberation. J Acoust Soc Am1983; 73(6): 2145–2149.
30.
NabelekAKNabelekIV.Room acoustics and speech perception. In: KatzJ (ed.) Handbook of clinical audiology. 4th ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1994, pp. 624–637.
31.
ProdiNVisentinC.Listening efficiency during lessons under various types of noise. J Acoust Soc Am2015; 138(4): 2438–2448.
32.
MealingsKTDemuthKBuchholzJM, et al. The effect of different open plan and enclosed classroom acoustic conditions on speech perception in kindergarten children. J Acoust Soc Am2015; 138(4): 2458–2469.
33.
Pichora-FullerMKKramerSEEckertMA, et al. Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear2016; 37: 5S–27S.
34.
PeelleJE.Listening effort: how the cognitive consequences of acoustic challenge are reflected in brain and behavior. Ear Hear2018; 39(2): 204–214.
35.
KlatteMMeisMSukowskiH, et al. Effects of irrelevant speech and traffic noise on speech perception and cognitive performance in elementary school children. Noise Health2007; 9(36): 64–74.
36.
ProdiNVisentinCPerettiA, et al. Investigating listening effort in classrooms for 5- to 7-year-old children. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch2019; 50(2): 196–210.
37.
VisentinCProdiNCappellettiF, et al. Using listening effort assessment in the acoustical design of rooms for speech. Build Environ2018; 136: 38–53.
38.
BovoRTrevisiPEmanuelliE, et al. Voice amplification for primary school teachers with voice disorders: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Occup Med Environ Health2013; 26(3): 363–372.
39.
Van ReenenCKarusseitC. Classroom acoustics as a consideration for inclusive education in South Africa. S Afr J Commun Disord2017; 64(1): e1–e10.
40.
WrightPFSellSHMcConnellKB, et al. Impact of recurrent otitis media on middle ear function, hearing, and language. J Pediatr1988; 113(3): 581–587.
41.
Cabral JuniorFPinnaMHAlvesRD, et al. Cochlear implantation and single-sided deafness: a systematic review of the literature. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol2016; 20: 69–75.
42.
Di StadioADipietroLToffanoR, et al. Working memory function in children with single side deafness using a bone-anchored hearing implant: a case-control study. Audiol Neurootol2018; 23(4): 238–244.
43.
Finitzo-HieberT.Classroom acoustics. In: RoeserR (ed.) Auditory disorders in school children. 2nd ed. New York: Thieme-Stratton, 1988, pp. 221–233.
44.
BreitsprecherC.Effects of reverberation on speech intelligibility in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Snekkersten: Eriksholm Research Centre, 2011.
45.
HwangJSKimKHLeeJH.Factors affecting sentence-in-noise recognition for normal hearing listeners and listeners with hearing loss. J Audiol Otol2017; 21(2): 81–87.
46.
IglehartF.Speech perception in classroom acoustics by children with cochlear implants and with typical hearing. Am J Audiol2016; 25: 100–109.
47.
HazratiOLoizouPC.The combined effects of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners. Int J Audiol2012; 51(6): 437–443.
48.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisal Guidance. Cochlear implants for children and adults with severe to profound deafness. NICE technology appraisal guidance [TAG166], http://www.nice.org.uk/ta166 (2009, accessed 4 February 2016).
49.
CaldwellANittrouerS.Speech perception in noise by children with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res2013; 56(1): 13–30.
50.
ChingTYvan WanrooyEDillonH, et al. Spatial release from masking in normal-hearing children and children who use hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am2011; 129(1): 368–375.
51.
ChingTYZhangVWFlynnC, et al. Factors influencing speech perception in noise for 5-year-old children using hearing aids or cochlear implants. Int J Audiol2018; 57(Suppl. 2): S70–S80.
52.
GhellerFLovoEBovoR.Speech intelligibility in noise: evaluation of children with cochlear implant using Italian matrix sentence test. In: International congress: Euronoise 2018, 11th European congress and exposition on noise control engineering, Heraklion, 27–31 May 2018.
53.
HochmuthSZokollMACarrollR, et al. Matrix sentence tests in noise for the Italian language. In: Abstracts of the 11th EFAS congress, Budapest, 19–22June2013.
54.
PuglisiGEWarzybokAHochmuthS, et al. An Italian matrix sentence test for the evaluation of speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol2015; 54(Suppl. 2): 44–50.
55.
OzimekEKutznerDLibiszewskiP.Speech intelligibility tested by the pediatric matrix sentence test in 3–6 year old children. Speech Commun2012; 54(10): 1121–1131.
56.
Theelen-Van Den HoekFLHoubenRDreschlerWA.Investigation into the applicability and optimization of the Dutch matrix sentence test for use with cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol2014; 53(11): 817–828.
57.
BovoRCiorbaAProsserS, et al. The McGurk phenomenon in Italian listeners. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital2009; 29(4): 203–208.
RogersCLListerJJFeboDM, et al. Effects of bilingualism, noise, and reverberation on speech perception by listeners with normal hearing. Appl Psycholinguist2006; 27(3): 465–485.
60.
BovoRLovoEAstolfiL, et al. Speech perception in noise by young sequential bilingual children. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital2018; 38(6): 536–543.
61.
GoldsteinBAFabianoLWashingtonPS.Phonological skills in predominantly English-speaking, predominantly Spanish-speaking, and Spanish-English bilingual children. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch2005; 36: 201–218.
62.
Fabiano-SmithLBarlowJ.Interaction in bilingual phonological acquisition: evidence from phonetic inventories. Int J Biling Educ Biling2010; 13: 81–97.
63.
KlatteMHellbrückJSeidelJ, et al. Effects of classroom acoustics on performance and well-being in elementary school children: a field study. Environ Behav2010; 42(5): 659–692.
64.
StuartA.Development of auditory temporal resolution in school-age children revealed by word recognition in continuous and interrupted noise. Ear Hear2005; 26: 78–88.
65.
CanoSFlórez-AristizábalLCollazosCA, et al. Designing interactive experiences for children with cochlear implant. Sensors2018; 18(7): 2154.
