Classroom acoustic conditions are often suboptimal, so how do they affect children’s cognition? This review synthesized research assessing the effect of different classroom acoustic conditions on children’s attention and memory. A comprehensive search of four online databases was conducted in January 2022 using the search term classroom AND (noise* OR reverberat* OR acoustic*) AND (cognit* OR attention OR memory OR processing). The results revealed 21 relevant papers plus an additional 10 from their references. The papers assessed the effect of a range of chronic and acute acoustic exposures on different attention and memory processes. Overall, the majority of studies showed a negative effect or no effect of higher noise levels, longer reverberation times, or lower speech clarity on children’s cognition. It would therefore be beneficial to improve classroom acoustic conditions if possible. Suggestions for future research to more fully understand the effect of different classroom acoustic conditions on children’s cognition are posed.
MealingsK. Classroom acoustic conditions: understanding what is suitable through a review of national and international standards, recommendations, and live classroom measurements. In: 2nd Australasian Acoustical Societies Conference, ACOUSTICS2016, 2016.
2.
MealingsKTDemuthKBuchholzJM, et al. An assessment of open plan and enclosed classroom listening environments for young children: Part 2 - Teachers’ questionnaires. J Educ Pediatr (Re)Habilitative Audiol2015; 21: 20–38.
3.
ImmsWMahatMByersT, et al. Type and use of innovative learning environments in Australasian schools ILETC Survey No. 1 [Internet]. Technical Report 1/2017. Melbourne, http://www.iletc.com.au/publications/reports (2017, accessed 30 May 2018).
4.
ShieldBDockrellJE.External and internal noise surveys of London primary schools. J Acoust Soc Am2004; 115(2): 730–738.
5.
MealingsKTBuchholzJMDemuthK, et al. Investigating the acoustics of a sample of open plan and enclosed Kindergarten classrooms in Australia. Appl Acoust2015; 100: 95–105.
6.
MinelliGPuglisiGEAstolfiA.Acoustical parameters for learning in classroom: a review. Build Environ2022; 208: 108582.
7.
SchillerISRemacleADurieuxN, et al. Effects of noise and a speaker’s impaired voice quality on spoken language processing in school-aged children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Speech Lang Hear Res2022; 65(1): 169–199.
8.
LamotteASEssadekAShadiliG, et al. The impact of classroom chatter noise on comprehension: a systematic review. Percept Mot Skills2021; 128(3): 1275–1291.
9.
SchillerISRemacleADurieuxN, et al. Effects of noise and a speaker’s impaired voice quality on spoken language processing in school-aged children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Speech, Lang Hear Res2022; 65(1): 169–99.
10.
MealingsK.The effect of classroom acoustic conditions on literacy outcomes for children in primary school: a review. Build Acoust2022; 29(1): 135–156.
11.
World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health for children and youth. World Health Organisation. 2007.
12.
SohlbergMMMateerCA.Effectiveness of an attention-training program. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol1987; 9(2): 117–130.
13.
StevensCBavelierD.The role of selective attention on academic foundations: a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Dev Cogn Neurosci2012; 2Suppl 1: S30–S48.
14.
SteinmayrRZieglerMTräubleB.Do intelligence and sustained attention interact in predicting academic achievement?Learn Individ Differ2010; 20(1): 14–18.
15.
CommodariE.Novice readers: the role of focused, selective, distributed and alternating attention at the first year of the academic curriculum. i Perception2017; 8(4): 2041669517718557.
16.
CaminaEGüellF.The neuroanatomical, neurophysiological and psychological basis of memory: current models and their origins. Front Pharmacol2017; 8(JUN): 1–16.
17.
GathercoleSEPickeringSJKnightC, et al. Working memory skills and educational attainment: evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Appl Cogn Psychol2004; 18(1): 1–16.
18.
BullREspyKAWiebeSA.Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers: longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years. Dev Neuropsychol2008; 33(3): 205–228.
19.
HainesMMStansfeldSAJobRF, et al. A follow-up study of effects of chronic aircraft noise exposure on child stress responses and cognition. Int J Epidemiol2001; 30(4): 839–845.
20.
ManlyTRobertsonIHAndersonV, et al. Test of Everyday Attention for Children: TEA-Ch. Bury St Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Company, 1999.
21.
BarnettDLNicholsACGouldDG.The effects of open-space versus traditional, self-contained classrooms on the auditory selective attending skills of elementary school children. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch1982; 13: 138–143.
22.
FlowersA.Flowers auditory test of selective attention. Dearborn, MI: Perceptual Learning Systems, 1972.
23.
SanzSAGarcíaAMGarcíaA.Road traffic noise around schools: a risk for pupil’s performance?Int Arch Occup Environ Health1993; 65(3): 205–207.
24.
Tecnicos Especialistas AsociadosSA. Test de percepion dediferencias. Madrid, Spain: Ediciones TEA, 1973.
25.
StansfeldSABerglundBClarkC, et al. Aircraft and road traffic noise and children’s cognition and health: a cross-national study. Lancet2005; 365(9475): 1942–1949.
26.
ToulouseEPieronH.Prueba perceptiva y de atencion. Madrid, Spain: TEA Ediciones, SA, 1986.
27.
CohenSKrantzDSEvansGW, et al. Aircraft noise and children: longitudinal and cross-sectional evidence on adaptation to noise and the effectiveness of noise abatement. J Pers Soc Psychol1981; 40(2): 331–345.
28.
HyggeSEvansGWBullingerM.A prospective study of some effects of aircraft noise on cognitive performance in schoolchildren. Psychol Sci2002; 13(5): 469–474.
29.
LercherPEvansGWMeisM.Ambient noise and cognitive processes among primary schoolchildren. Environ Behav2003; 35(6): 725–735.
30.
ForasterMEsnaolaMGarcía-EstebanR, et al. Exposure to road traffic noise and cognitive trajectories in schoolchildren. In: INTER-NOISE 2019 MADRID - 48th international congress and exhibition on noise control engineering, p.2. 2019. Madrid: Spanish Acoustical Society.
31.
van KempenEvan KampINilssonM, et al. The role of annoyance in the relation between transportation noise and children’s health and cognition. J Acoust Soc Am2010; 128(5): 2817–2828.
32.
LetzR.Use of computerized test batteries for quantifying neurobehavioral outcomes. Environ Health Perspect1991; 90: 195.
33.
FernandesRAVidorDCGMOliveiraAA.The effect of noise on attention and performance in reading and writing tasks. CoDAS2019; 31(4): e20170241.
34.
BenczikELealGCardosoT.A utilização do teste de Atenção Concentrada (AC) para a população infanto-juvenil: uma contribuição para a avaliação neuropsicológica. Rev Psicopedag2016; 33(100): 37–49.
35.
McGarrigleRGustafsonSJHornsbyBWY, et al. Behavioral measures of listening effort in school-age children: examining the effects of signal-to-noise ratio, hearing loss, and amplification. Ear Hear2019; 40(2): 381–392.
36.
BhangSYYoonJSungJ, et al. Comparing attention and cognitive function in school children across noise conditions: a quasi-experimental study. Psychiatry Investig2018; 15(6): 620–627.
37.
YooHLeeJKangS, et al. Standardization of the comprehensive attention test for the Korean children and adolescents. J Korean Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatr2009; 20: 68–75.
38.
GoldenCJ.The stroop color and word test. Chicago, IL: Stoelting Company, 1978.
39.
AllenRPammerK.The impact of concurrent noise on visual search in children with ADHD. J Atten Disord2018; 22(14): 1344–1353.
40.
DockrellJEShieldBM.Acoustical barriers in classrooms: the impact of noise on performance in the classroom. Br Educ Res J2006; 32(3): 509–525.
KlatteMHellbrückJSeidelJ, et al. Effects of classroom acoustics on performance and wellbeing in elementary school children: a field study. Environ Behav2010; 42: 659–692.
43.
KlatteMSpilskiJMayerlJ, et al. Effects of aircraft noise on reading and quality of life in primary school children in Germany: results from the NORAH study. Environ Behav2017; 49(4): 390–424.
44.
MathesonMClarkCMartinR, et al. The effects of road traffic and aircraft noise exposure on children′s episodic memory: the RANCH Project. Noise Health2010; 12(49): 244–254.
45.
CohenMJ.Children’s memory scale manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace and Company, 1997.
46.
HollanderCde AndradeVM.The effects of aircraft noise on the auditory language processing abilities of English first language primary school learners in Durban, South Africa. Urban Educ2014; 49(7): 783–805.
47.
GardnerMF.Test of auditory-perceptual abilities. San Francisco, CA: Children’s Hospital of San Francisco Publication Department, 1985.
48.
DollaghanCCampbellTF.Nonword repetition and child language impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res1998; 41: 1136–1146.
49.
HainesMMStansfeldSAJobRF, et al. Chronic aircraft noise exposure, stress responses, mental health and cognitive performance in school children. Psychol Med2001; 31(2): 265–277.
50.
StilesDJMcGregorKKBentlerRA.Vocabulary and working memory in children fit with hearing aids. J Speech Lang Hear Res2012; 55(1): 154–167.
51.
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: 1–6.
52.
Van OverscheldeJPRawsonKADunloskyJ, et al. Category norms: an updated and expanded version of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. J Mem Lang2004; 50(3): 289–335.
53.
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.
54.
JianxinPPengJ.The effects of the noise and reverberation on the working memory span of children. Arch Acoust2018; 43(1): 123–128.
55.
SullivanJROsmanHSchaferEC.The effect of noise on the relationship between auditory working memory and comprehension in school-age children. J Speech Lang Hear Res2015; 58(3): 1043–1051.
56.
PickeringSJGathercoleSE.Working memory test battery for children. London: Psychological Corporation Europe, 2001.
57.
OsmanHSullivanJR. Children’s auditory working memory performance in degraded listening conditions. J Speech Lang Hear Res2014; 57(4): 1503–1511.
58.
SöderlundGSikströmSSmartA.Listen to the noise: noise is beneficial for cognitive performance in ADHD. J Child Psychol Psychiatry2007; 48(8): 840–847.
59.
HowardCSMunroKJPlackCJ.Listening effort at signal-to-noise ratios that are typical of the school classroom. Int J Audiol2010; 49(12): 928–932.
60.
BeldamM-B.Testing, testing-Can you hear me, understand me, remember me? In: Proceedings of Forum Acusticum 2014 in Krakow. Polish Acoustical Society, 2014.
61.
KlatteMLachmannTSchlittmeierS, et al. The irrelevant sound effect in short-term memory: is there developmental change?Eur J Cogn Psychol2010; 22(8): 1168–1191.
62.
ElliottEMBhagatSPLynnSD.Can children with (central) auditory processing disorders ignore irrelevant sounds?Res Dev Disabil2007; 28(5): 506–517.
63.
Friso-van den BosIvan de Weijer-BergsmaE. Classroom versus individual working memory assessment: predicting academic achievement and the role of attention and response inhibition. Memory2020; 28(1): 70–82.
64.
Australia/New Zealand Standard. AS/NZS2107:2016, Acoustics - Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors. 2016.
65.
AbikoffHCourtneyMESzeibelPJ, et al. The effects of auditory stimulation on the arithmetic performance of children with ADHD and nondisabled children. J Learn Disabil1996; 29(3): 238–246.
66.
SikströmSSöderlundG.Stimulus-dependent dopamine release in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychol Rev2007; 114(4): 1047–1075.
67.
TulvingEThomsonDM.Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychol Rev. 1973; 80(5): 352–373.
68.
GoddenDRBaddeleyAD.Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater. Br J Psychol1975; 66(3): 325–331.
69.
HyggeSBomanEEnmarkerI.The effects of road traffic noise and meaningful irrelevant speech on different memory systems. Scand J Psychol2003; 44: 13–21.
70.
CrandellCCSmaldinoJJ.Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and with hearing impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch2000; 31: 362–370.
71.
ShuSMaH.Restorative effects of classroom soundscapes on children’s cognitive performance. Int J Environ Res Public Health2019; 16(2): 1–15.
72.
DoggettRSanderEJBirtJ, et al. Virtual reality to evaluate the impact of room acoustics on cognitive performance and well-being. Front Virtual Real2021; 2: 1–9.
73.
SchillerISMorsommeDKobM, et al. Listening to a dysphonic speaker in noise may impede children’s spoken language processing in a realistic classroom setting. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch2021; 52(1): 396–408.
74.
ValenteDLPlevinskyHMFrancoJM, et al. Experimental investigation of the effects of the acoustical conditions in a simulated classroom on speech recognition and learning in children. J Acoust Soc Am2012; 131(1): 232–246.
