Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Office noise: Can headphones and masking sound attenuate distraction by background speech?
Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Gävle.
Department of Psychology, Uppsala University.
School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Operation, Maintenance and Acoustics.
Show others and affiliations
Number of Authors: 5
2016 (English)In: Work: A journal of Prevention, Assesment and rehabilitation, ISSN 1051-9815, E-ISSN 1875-9270Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND:

Background speech is one of the most disturbing noise sources at shared workplaces in terms of both annoyance and performance-related disruption. Therefore, it is important to identify techniques that can efficiently protect performance against distraction. It is also important that the techniques are perceived as satisfactory and are subjectively evaluated as effective in their capacity to reduce distraction.

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of the current study was to compare three methods of attenuating distraction from background speech: masking a background voice with nature sound through headphones, masking a background voice with other voices through headphones and merely wearing headphones (without masking) as a way to attenuate the background sound. Quiet was deployed as a baseline condition.

METHODS:

30 students participated in an experiment employing a repeated measures design.

RESULTS:

Performance (serial short-term memory) was impaired by background speech (1 voice), but this impairment was attenuated when the speech was masked- and in particular when it was masked by nature sound. Furthermore, perceived workload was lowest in the quiet condition and significantly higher in all other sound conditions. Notably, the headphones tested as a sound-attenuating device (i.e. without masking) did not protect against the effects of background speech on performance and subjective work load.

CONCLUSIONS:

Nature sound was the only masking condition that worked as a protector of performance, at least in the context of the serial recall task. However, despite the attenuation of distraction by nature sound, perceived workload was still high - suggesting that it is difficult to find a masker that is both effective and perceived as satisfactory.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016.
National Category
Other Civil Engineering
Research subject
Operation and Maintenance
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-60016DOI: 10.3233/WOR-162421PubMedID: 27768004OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-60016DiVA: diva2:1040710
Available from: 2016-10-28 Created: 2016-10-28 Last updated: 2016-11-22

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Odelius, Johan
By organisation
Operation, Maintenance and Acoustics
In the same journal
Work: A journal of Prevention, Assesment and rehabilitation
Other Civil Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 30 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link