Advertisement

Of cricket chirps and car horns: The effect of nature sounds on cognitive performance

  • Stephen C. Van Hedger
  • Howard C. Nusbaum
  • Luke Clohisy
  • Susanne M. Jaeggi
  • Martin Buschkuehl
  • Marc G. Berman
Brief Report
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Attention restoration theory (ART) posits that stimuli found in nature may restore directed attention functioning by reducing demands on the endogenous attention system. In the present experiment, we assessed whether nature-related cognitive benefits extended to auditory presentations of nature, a topic that has been understudied. To assess directed attention, we created a composite measure consisting of a backward digit span task and a dual n-back task. Participants completed these cognitive measures and an affective questionnaire before and after listening to and aesthetically judging either natural or urban soundscapes (between-participants). Relative to participants who were exposed to urban soundscapes, we observed significant improvements in cognitive performance for individuals exposed to nature. Urban soundscapes did not systematically affect performance either adversely or beneficially. Natural sounds did not differentially change positive or negative affect, despite these sounds being aesthetically preferred to urban sounds. These results provide initial evidence that brief experiences with natural sounds can improve directed attention functioning in a single experimental session.

Keywords

Attention Cognitive and attentional control Attention restoration theory Nature 

Notes

Funding Sources

This work was supported by a grant from the TKF Foundation to Marc G. Berman, two grants from the John Templeton Foundation (the University of Chicago Center for Practical Wisdom) to Howard Nusbaum (PI) and Marc G. Berman (co-PI) and the Virtue, Happiness, and Meaning of Life Scholars Group. This work was also supported by grant from the National Science Foundation (BCS-1632445) to Marc G. Berman, as well as an internal grant from the University of Chicago to Marc G. Berman.

Compliance with ethical standards

Dedication

The authors would like to dedicate this paper to Stephen Kaplan (1936–2018).

Declaration of Competing Interests

Martin Buschkuehl is employed at the MIND Research Institute, whose interest is related to this work and Susanne M. Jaeggi has an indirect financial interest in the MIND Research Institute. All other authors report no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abbott, L. C., Taff, D., Newman, P., Benfield, J. A., & Mowen, A. J. (2016). The influence of natural sounds on attention restoration. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 34(3), 5–15.  https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2016-V34-I3-6893 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarsson, J. J., Wiens, S., & Nilsson, M. E. (2010). Stress recovery during exposure to nature sound and environmental noise. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(3), 1036–1046.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7031036 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Benfield, J. A., Taff, B. D., Newman, P., & Smyth, J. (2014). Natural Sound Facilitates Mood Recovery. Ecopsychology, 6(3), 183–188.  https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2014.0028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berman, M. G., Hout, M. C., Kardan, O., Hunter, M. R., Yourganov, G., Henderson, J. M., … Jonides, J. (2014). The perception of naturalness correlates with low-level visual Features of environmental scenes. PLoS ONE, 9(12).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114572 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting With Nature. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1207–1212.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Berman, M. G., Kross, E., Krpan, K. M., Askren, M. K., Burson, A., Deldin, P. J., … Jonides, J. (2012). Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140(3), 300–305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.012.Interacting CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 249–259.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourrier, S. C., Berman, M. G., & Enns, J. T. (2018). Cognitive Strategies and Natural Environments Interact in Influencing Executive Function. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1248.  https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2018.01248 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Bratman, G. N., Daily, G. C., Levy, B. J., & Gross, J. J. (2015). The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 41–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., & Daily, G. C. (2012). The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249(1), 118–136.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06400.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cimprich, B., & Ronis, D. L. (2003). An environmental intervention to restore attention in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Cancer Nursing, 26(4), 284-292; quiz 293-294.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00002820-200308000-00005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Dadvand, P., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Esnaola, M., Forns, J., Basagaña, X., Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., … Sunyer, J. (2015). Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(26), 7937–7942.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503402112 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. de Paiva Vianna, K. M., Cardoso, M. R. A., & Rodrigues, R. M. C. (2015). Noise pollution and annoyance: An urban soundscapes study. Noise & Health, 17(76), 125–133.  https://doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.155833 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dobie, R. A., & Van Hemel, S. (2004). Basics of sounds, the ear, and hearing. In R. A. Dobie & S. Van Hemel (Eds.), Hearing Loss: Determining Eligibility for Social Security Benefits (pp. 42–63). Washington D.C.: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Emfield, A. G., & Neider, M. B. (2014). Evaluating visual and auditory contributions to the cognitive restoration effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 VN-re, 548.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00548 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammer, M. S., Swinburn, T. K., & Neitzel, R. L. (2014). Environmental noise pollution in the United States: Developing an effective public health response. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(2), 115–119.  https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307272 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jahncke, H., Eriksson, K., & Naula, S. (2015). The effects of auditive and visual settings on perceived restoration likelihood. Noise and Health, 17(74), 1.  https://doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.149559 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What Are the Odds? A Practical Guide to Computing and Reporting Bayes Factors. The Journal of Problem Solving, 7(1), 2–9.  https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception & Psychophysics, 12(4), 354–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kardan, O., Demiralp, E., Hout, M. C., Hunter, M. R., Karimi, H., Hanayik, T., … Berman, M. G. (2015). Is the preference of natural versus man-made scenes driven by bottom-up processing of the visual features of nature? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lilienthal, L., Tamez, E., Shelton, J. T., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Dual n-back training increases the capacity of the focus of attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(1), 135–141.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0335-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mace, B. L., Bell, P. A., & Loomis, R. J. (2004). Visibility and natural quiet in national parks and wilderness areas: Psychological considerations. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 5–31.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503254747 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. McMahan, E. A., & Estes, D. (2015). The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9760, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.994224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Olmsted, F. L. (1993). Yosemite and the Mariposa grove: a preliminary report, 1865. California: Yosemite Association.Google Scholar
  29. Ottosson, J., & Grahn, P. (2005). A comparison of leisure time spent in a garden with leisure time spent indoors: On measures of restoration in residents in geriatric care. Landscape Research, 30(1), 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ratcliffe, E., Gatersleben, B., & Sowden, P. T. (2013). Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived attention restoration and stress recovery. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 221–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Redick, T. S., & Lindsey, D. R. B. (2013). Complex span and n-back measures of working memory: a meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1102–1113.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0453-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on Generality (COG): A Proposed Addition to All Empirical Papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Tennessen, C. M., & Cimprich, B. (1995). Views To Nature: Effects on Attention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Human Behavior & Environment: Advances in Theory & Research, 6, 85–125.Google Scholar
  35. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress Recovery During Exposure To Natural and Urban Environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Hedger, S. C., Nusbaum, H. C., Huang, A., Heald, S. L. M., Kotabe, H. P., & Berman, M. G. (2018). The aesthetic preference for nature sounds depends on sound object recognition. PsyArXiv.  https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nsqvy
  37. Wagenmakers, E. J., Love, J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., … Morey, R. D. (2017). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1323-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen C. Van Hedger
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Howard C. Nusbaum
    • 1
    • 2
  • Luke Clohisy
    • 1
  • Susanne M. Jaeggi
    • 4
    • 5
  • Martin Buschkuehl
    • 6
  • Marc G. Berman
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Center for Practical WisdomUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Brain and Mind InstituteWestern UniversityLondonCanada
  4. 4.School of EducationUniversity of California – IrvineIrvineUSA
  5. 5.Department of Cognitive SciencesUniversity of California – IrvineIrvineUSA
  6. 6.MIND Research InstituteIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations