We sought to determine the effects of classroom loudspeaker position, model of loudspeaker, and talker accent on mental effort or cognitive load, word clarity, sound quality, and word recognition. Thirty-one typically-developed university students whose native language is English rated and transcribed recorded sentences produced by a native English talker and a native Dutch talker speaking English. The listeners were seated in acoustically pre-calibrated locations in a classroom and were presented 10 sentences at conversational level in each of four randomized conditions: from a conventional classroom loudspeaker in front or mounted above them, and from a loudspeaker optimized for speech reproduction placed in front or mounted above them. At the front of the classroom was a muted video recording of one of the talkers delivering an online lecture. Results showed front-located speakers yielded less cognitive effort, better sound quality, and better word clarity—showing importance of congruence of loudspeaker/talker position.
AstolfiAPuglisiGEMurgiaS, et al. Influence of classroom acoustics on noise disturbance and well-being for first graders. Front Psychol2019; 10. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02736 (accessed 5 January 2023).
2.
GhellerFLovoEArsieA, et al. Classroom acoustics: Listening problems in children. Build Acoust2020; 27: 47–59.
3.
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.
4.
HodgsonM.Rating, ranking, and understanding acoustical quality in university classrooms. J Acoust Soc Am2002; 112(2): 568–575.
5.
RossingT.The science of sound. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 1990.
6.
LohKYadavMPersson WayeK, et al. Toward child-appropriate acoustic measurement methods in primary schools and daycare centers. Front Built Environ2022. DOI: 10.3389/fbuil.2022.688847 (accessed 5 January 2023).
7.
SmaldinoJJCrandellCC.Classroom amplification technology: theory and practice. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch2000; 31(4): 371–375.
8.
CrandellCCSmaldinoJJ.Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and with hearing impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch2000; 31(4): 362–370.
9.
ShieldBMDockrellJE.The effects of noise on children at school: A review. Build Acoust2003; 10: 97–116.
10.
LjungR.Room Acoustics and Cognitive Load when Listening to Speech. PhD Thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, 2010.
11.
KjellbergALjungRHallmanD.Recall of words heard in noise. Appl Cogn Psychol2008; 22: 1088–1098.
12.
MealingsK.Classroom acoustics and cognition: A review of the effects of noise and reverberation on primary school children’s attention and memory. Build Acoust2022; 29: 401–431.
13.
Pichora-FullerMKSchneiderBADanemanM.How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am1995; 97: 593–608.
AS/NZS2107. Acoustics – Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors. Standards Australia, 2016.
16.
LjungRKjellbergA.Long reverberation time decreases recall of spoken information. Build Acoust2009; 16(4): 301–311.
17.
MealingsK.Classroom acoustic conditions: Understanding what is suitable through a review of national and international standards, recommendations, and live classroom measurements. Proceeding of Acoustics, 2016, Brisbane, Australia.
18.
MealingsK.The effect of classroom acoustic conditions on literacy outcomes for children in primary school: A review. Build Acoust2022; 29: 135–156.
19.
Morgas-RecaldeJPalauRMarquezM.How classroom acoustics influence students and teachers: A systematic literature review. J Tech Sci Ed2021; 11: 245–259.
20.
KennedySMHodgsonMEdgettLD, et al. Subjective assessment of listening environments in university classrooms: perceptions of students. J Acoust Soc Am2006; 119(1): 299–309.
21.
YangZBecerik-GerberBMinoL.A study on student perceptions of higher education classrooms: impact of classroom attributes on student satisfaction and performance. Build Environ2013; 70: 171–188.
22.
BrunsP.The ventriloquist illusion as a tool to study multisensory processing: an update. Front Integr Neurosci2019; 13: 51.
23.
American National Standards Institute. Acoustical performance, criteria, design requirements, and guidelines for schools. Part 1: Permanent schools. ANSI/ASA S12.60-2010/Part 1. New York, NY: Acoustical Society of America, 2010.
24.
BlairJLarsenJ.Classroom amplification: Who cares? And why should we?American Speech Language-Hearing Association Annual Convention, San Diego, 2011.
25.
LarsenJNyeC.Classroom amplification benefits for academic skills and speech recognition. EPB Briefs2010; 4(6): 1–8.
26.
ProdiNFarnetaniASmyrnovaY, et al. Investigating classroom acoustics by means of advanced reproduction techniques. Audio Engineering Society 122nd Convention, 2007, Vienna, Austria.
27.
TriniteBAstolfiA.The impact of sound field amplification systems on speech perception of pupils with and without language disorders in natural conditions. Appl Acoust2021; 175: 107824.
28.
LibermanAM.Some results of research on speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am1957; 29(1): 117–123.
29.
SwellerJ.Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cogn Sci1988; 12(2): 257–285.
30.
PeelleJE.Listening effort: How the cognitive consequences of acoustic challenge are reflected in brain and behavior. Ear Hear2018; 39(2): 204–214.
31.
ZekveldAAKramerSEFestenJM.Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response. Ear Hear2011; 32(4): 498–510.
32.
van MerriënboerJJGSchuurmanJGde CroockMBM, et al. Redirecting learners’ attention during training: Effects on cognitive load, transfer test performance and training efficiency. Learn Instr2002; 12: 11–37.
33.
SchnotzWKürschnerC.A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Ed Psych Rev2007; 19: 469–508.
34.
PaasFGWC. Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. J Educ Psychol1992; 84(4): 429–434.
35.
VisentinCProdiNCappellettiF, et al. Using listening effort assessment in the acoustical design of rooms for speech. Build Environ2018; 136: 38–53.
OuwehandKKroefAVDWongJ, et al. Measuring cognitive load: are there more valid alternatives to Likert rating scales?Front Educ2021; 6: 702616.
38.
CohenJ.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1969.
39.
FratoniGD’OrazioDDe SalvioD, et al. Predicting speech intelligibility in university classrooms using geometrical acoustic simulations. In Building Simulation Conference Proceedings, 2019, Vol. 6, pp. 4305–4312. International Building Performance Simulation Association (IBPSA).
40.
De SalvioDD’OrazioD. Effectiveness of acoustic treatments and PA redesign by means of student activity and speech levels. Appl Acoust2022; 194: 108783.
41.
Pichora-FullerMKKramerSEEckertMA, et al. Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear2016; 37Suppl 1: 5S–27S.
42.
VisentinCValzolgherCPellegattiM, et al. A comparison of simultaneously-obtained measures of listening effort: pupil dilation, verbal response time, and self-rating. Int J Audiol2022; 61(7): 561–573.
43.
VisentinCProdiNCappellettiF, et al. Speech intelligibility and listening effort in university classrooms for native and non-native Italian listeners. Build Acoust2019; 26(4): 275–291.
