Advertisement

Impairing effects of noise in high and low noise sensitive persons working on different mental tasks

  • Stephan SandrockEmail author
  • Martin Schütte
  • Barbara Griefahn
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

There is no information of mental strain in noise sensitive persons working under moderate levels of noise. The aim of the study was to determine relevant dimensions of impairing effects differentiating between noise sensitive and insensitive persons.

Methods

56 participants (27 men, 29 women; 18–31 years old) were classified into 28 low and 28 high noise sensitive persons. They worked either on a grammatical reasoning task (GRT) or a mental arithmetic task (MPT) under realistic road traffic scenarios [LAeq 55 dB(A)]. Afterwards they rated their annoyance and subjective mental strain.

Results

A multivariate analysis of variance provided significant effects for the individual noise sensitivity (P < 0.01) and the kind of task being performed (P < 0.01). To determine to what extent the rating scales lead to a differentiation of the four groups, a 2-factorial discriminant analysis was carried out subsequently. Results showed, that psycho-physiological effort and emotional strain differentiated best between the noise sensitivity groups and psycho physiological effort and focus on tasks (attention) separated the tasks.

Conclusion

Noise sensitive persons are more distracted by noise than insensitive persons. Furthermore the results suggest that noise sensitive subjects do not only evaluate a noisy situation as more annoying but experience higher levels of strain than insensitive persons.

Keywords

Noise sensitivity Traffic noise Annoyance Mental strain Performance Discriminant analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The study was performed within the framework of the EU-funded IP SILENCE (Contract 516288).

References

  1. Ackermann H (2006) Basics of medical biometrics. [Grundlagen der medizinischen Biometrie.]. Epsilon-Verlag, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  2. AGARD (1989) Human performance assessment methods. Advisory Group for Aerospace Research & Development, EssexGoogle Scholar
  3. Babisch W (2004) Health aspects of extra-aural noise research. Noise Health 6(22):69–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddeley AD (1968) A three minute reasoning test based on grammatical transformation. Psychon Sci 10(10):341–342Google Scholar
  5. Belojevic G, Öhrström E, Rylander R (1992) Effects of noise on mental performance with regard to subjective noise sensitivity. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 64:293–301. doi: 10.1007/BF00378288 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belojevic G, Slepcevic V, Jakovljevic B (1999) Individual differences in mental processing under quiet and noisy laboratory conditions. Facta Univ 1(4):45–50Google Scholar
  7. Belojevic G, Jakovljevic B, Slepcevic V (2003) Noise and mental performance: personality attributes and noise sensitivity. Noise Health 6(21):77–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Borsky PN (1972) Sonic boom exposure effects II.4: annoyance reactions. J Sound Vib 20:527–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bortz J (2005) Statistics for human and social scientists. [Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler.]. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Bortz J, Liehnert G, Boehnke K (2008) Non-parametric methods in biostatistics. [Verteilungsfreie Methoden in der Biostatistik.]. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooley WW, Lohnes PR (1971) Multivariate data analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Dornic S, Laaksonen T, Ekehammar B (1990) Noise sensitivity: general self-reports vs. noise effect in laboratory situations. Report No. 716. Department of Psychology, University Stockholm, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  13. Dudek B, Marszal-Wisniewska M, Merecz-Kot D et al (1991) Effects of noise on cognitive processes of individuals in a laboratory experiment. Pol J Occup Med Environ Health 4(3):269–279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (2007) EUROCONTROL medium-term forecast: IFR flight movements 2007–2013. EATMP Infocentre, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. Fields JM, de Jong RG, Gjestland T et al (2001) Standardized general-purpose noise reaction questions for community noise surveys: research and a recommendation. In community response to noise team of ICBEN (ed). J Sound Vib 242:641–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guski R, Felscher-Suhr U, Schuemer R (1999) The concept of noise annoyance: how international experts see it. J Sound Vib 223:513–527. doi: 10.1006/jsvi.1998.2173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hacker W, Richter P (1984) Mental strain: mental fatigue, monotony, satiation and stress. [Psychische Fehlbeanspruchung. Psychische Ermüdung, Monotonie, Sättigung und Streß.]. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. ISO 10075-1:1991, Ergonomic principles related to mental work-load—general terms and definitions. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO 10075-3: 2004, Ergonomic principles related to mental workload—part 3: principles and requirements concerning methods for measuring and assessing mental workload. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. ISO/TS 15666: 2003, Acoustics—assessment of noise annoyance by means of social and socio-acoustic surveys. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  21. Jelínková Z, Picek M, Hynčica V (1989) Psychophysiological aspects of noise influence. Int J Psychophysiol 7(2–4):249–250. doi: 10.1016/0167-8760(89)90190-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Job RFS (1996) The influence of subjective reactions to noise on health effects of the noise. Environ Int 22(1):93–104. doi: 10.1016/0160-4120(95)00107-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Job RFS (1999) Noise sensitivity as a factor influencing human reactions to noise. Noise Health 3:57–68Google Scholar
  24. Johnson RA, Wichern DW (1992) Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  25. Joiko K, Schmauder M, Wolff G (2008) Mental stress and strain in the job: identification—design. [Psychische Belastung und Beanspruchung im Berufsleben: Erkennen—Gestalten.] Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin, DortmundGoogle Scholar
  26. Kjellberg A, Sköldström B (1991) Noise annoyance during the performance of different nonauditory tasks. Percept Mot Skills 73:39–49. doi: 10.2466/PMS.73.4.39-49 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kjellberg A, Landström U, Tesarz M, Söderberg L, Akerlund E (1996) The effects of nonphysical noise characteristics, ongoing task and noise sensitivity on annoyance and distraction due to noise at work. J Environ Psychol 16:123–136. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1996.0010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ljungberg JK, Neely G (2007) Stress, subjective experience and cognitive performance during exposure to noise and vibration. J Environ Psychol 27:44–54. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mann HU, Ratzenberger R, Schubert M et al (2001) Traffic forecast 2015 for the Bundesverkehrswegeplanung. [Verkehrsprognose 2015 für die Bundesverkehrswegeplanung.]. Federal Ministry of Transport, Building, and Urban Affairs, BonnGoogle Scholar
  30. Miedema HME, Vos H (2003) Noise sensitivity and reactions to noise and other environmental conditions. J Acoust Soc Am 113:1492–1504. doi: 10.1121/1.1547437 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Öhrström E, Björkman M, Rylander R (1988) Noise annoyance with regard to neurophysiological sensitivity, subjective noise sensitivity and personality variables. Psychol Med 18(3):605–613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Plath HE, Richter P (1984) Fatigue, monotony, satiation, stress (BMS II) method for the scaled assessment of perceived strain. [Ermüdung, Monotonie, Sättigung, Stress (BMS II). Verfahren zur skalierten Erfassung erlebter Beanspruchungsfolgen.] Psychodiagnostisches Zentrum, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. Schlegel RE, Gilliland K (1990) Evaluation of the criterion task set. Part 1. CTS performance and SWAT data—baseline conditions. Wright-Patterson Airforce Base, DaytonGoogle Scholar
  34. Schütte M, Marks A, Wenning E, Griefahn B (2007a) The development of the noise sensitivity questionnaire. Noise Health 9(34):15–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schütte M, Sandrock S, Griefahn B (2007b) Factorial validity of the noise sensitivity questionnaire. Noise Health 9(37):96–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shingledecker CA (1984) A task battery for applied human performance assessment research. Wright-Patterson Airforce Base, DaytonGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith A (1990) Noise, performance efficiency and safety. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 62:1–5. doi: 10.1007/BF00397841 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stansfeld SA (1992) Noise, noise sensitivity and psychological studies, psychological medicine—monograph supplement, vol 22. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education, Inc, BostonGoogle Scholar
  40. van Kamp I, Job RFS, Hatfield J et al (2004) The role of noise sensitivity in the noise–response relation: a comparison of three international airport studies. J Acoust Soc Am 116:3471–3479. doi: 10.1121/1.1810291 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. VDI guideline 2058-3 (1999) Rating of noise at the workplace with respect to different tasks. [Beurteilung von Lärm am Arbeitsplatz unter Berücksichtigung unterschiedlicher Tätigkeiten.] Beuth, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  42. Weinstein N (1978) Individual differences in reactions to noise: a longitudinal study in a college dormitory. J Appl Psychol 63(4):458–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wetherell A (1996) Perfomance tests. Environ Health Perspect 104(Suppl 2):247–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wierwille WW, Eggemeier FT (1993) Recommendations for mental workload measurement in a test and evaluation environment. Hum Factors 35:263–281Google Scholar
  45. Zimmer K, Ellermeier W (1999) Psychometric properties of four measures of noise sensitivity: a comparison. J Environ Psychol 19:295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan Sandrock
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Schütte
    • 2
  • Barbara Griefahn
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für angewandte ArbeitswissenschaftDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Institut für Arbeitsphysiologie an der Universität Dortmund DortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations