Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
To cite this article: Åsa Skagerstrand, Susanne Köbler & Stefan Stenfelt (2017) Loudness and
annoyance of disturbing sounds – perception by normal hearing subjects, International Journal of
Audiology, 56:10, 775-783, DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2017.1321790
Original Article
Abstract
Objective: Sounds in the daily environment may cause loudness and annoyance. The present study investigated the perception of loudness
and annoyance for eight different sounds present in a daily sound environment and at nine different levels varying by ±20 dB around the
recorded level. The outcomes were related to tests of participants’ auditory and cognitive abilities. Design: The participants undertook
auditory and working memory (WM) tests prior to ratings of everyday sounds previously shown to be disturbing for persons with hearing
impairment (hearing aid users). Study sample: Twenty-one participants aged between 24 and 71 years, with normal hearing threshold levels.
Results: Both perceived loudness and annoyance were primarily driven by the sound level. Sounds emitted from paper were rated as having
greater loudness and being more annoying than the other sound sources at the same sound level. Auditory and cognitive abilities did not
influence the perception of loudness and annoyance. Conclusions: Loudness and annoyance ratings were mainly driven by sound level.
Expectations of a sound seemed to influence the assessment of loudness and annoyance while auditory performance and WM capacity
showed no influence on the ratings.
Correspondence: Åsa Skagerstrand, Audiological Research Centre, Örebro University Hospital, S-70185 Örebro, Sweden. E-mail: asa.skagerstrand@regionorebrolan.se
ISSN 1499-2027 print/ISSN 1708-8186 online ß 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-
commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2017.1321790
776 Å. Skagerstrand et al.
Figure 1. (a and b) Temporal, (c and d) spectral and (e and f) relative occurrence of sound pressure level for the sound stimuli. The left
panel shows sound from traffic, water, newspaper, and documents, and the right panel sound from electric mixer, drilling machine, cutlery
and porcelain.
Results
Fullgrabe et al. (2015). The reading span test showed a mean value
Demographic data of 12.9 points (SD 3.1) out of a possible 24 points, indicating
The results of the auditory tests and the test of WM capacity are normal WM capacity (Rönnberg et al, 1989).
presented as means and standard deviations (SD) in Table 2. When the participants were subgrouped according to age, the
All participants had an auditory dynamic range exceeding 95 dB older participants had significantly higher PTAs, worse reading
(computed as UCLtones – HTLtones) at all tested frequencies between span scores, higher HINT SNRs and lower UCLs than the younger
0.25 and 4 kHz. Increased subjective noise sensitivity according to participants (Table 2). Only age was significantly different between
the Weinstein questionnaire was found for three participants who groups when the participants were subgrouped based on the HINT
had scores slightly over 96 (calculated as the mean +1SD according scores while age and HINT scores were statistically different
to Belojevic et al, 1992). Scores for the HINT test varied between between the groups based on the reading span scores. The HINT
–5.1 and –2.0 dB SNR (signal-to-noise ratio), with a mean value of scores were negatively correlated with the reading span scores,
–3.1 dB (SD 0.96), indicating normal speech perception (Hällgren et r ¼ 0.44. Subgrouping the participants according to UCL
al, 2006). The HINT SNRs were correlated with age, r ¼ 0.611, with indicated that participants with lower UCLs had better speech in
higher SNRs being needed with increasing age, consistent with noise perception.
Disturbing sounds for normal hearing people 779
Table 2. Results of the auditory and cognitive tests for all participants and for the subgroups divided by median value.
PTA4 [dB HL] HINT Reading Weinstein
n Better ear/worse ear Age [years] [dB SNR] span questionnaire UCL [dB HL]
All subjects 21 5.0 (5.2)/6.9 (5.6) 55.2 (14.6) –3.1 dB (0.96) 12.85 (3.1) 80.0 (15.9) 102.1 (6.8)
Age 1 62 years 11 2.3* (2.7)/3.7* (2.8) 45.3** (13.8) –3.72** (0.9) 14.6** (2.8) 82.2 (11.8) 98.7* (7.1)
Age 2462 years 10 8.1*(5.7)/10.4* (6.0) 66.2** (2.9) –2.49** (0.5) 11.1** (2.1) 77.6 (19.8) 105.8* (3.8)
HINT 1 SNR 4–2.7 dB 12 5.83 (6.1)/8.02 (6.2) 63.2** (6.0) –2.42* (0.3) 12.17 (3.5) 80.0 (19.1) 103.1 (6.6)
HINT 2 SNR –2.7 dB 9 4.03 (3.8)/5.42 (4.8) 44.7** (12.6) –4.09* (0.6) 13.88 (2.2) 80.0 (11.4) 100.6 (7.1)
Reading span 1 RS 12 12 5.63 (6.3)/7.60 (6.8) 61.0* (9.8) –2.78* (0.9) 10.75* (1.3) 79.42 (19.0) 102.8 (6.7)
Reading Span 2 RS 412 9 4.31 (3.5)/5.97 (4.4) 47.6* (16.9) –3.61* (0.9) 16.0* (2.1) 80.78 (11.6) 101.1 (7.2)
Weinstein 1: 78 11 6.46 (5.1)/8.96 (5.8) 56.7 (15.4) –3.02 (0.9) 12.91 (3.3) 69.5* (10.7) 104.1 (5.6)
Weinstein 2: 478 10 3.19 (5.1)/4.17 (4.4) 53.3 (14.2) –3.28 (1.1) 12.78 (3.0) 94.0* (9.4) 99.3 (7.6)
UCL1 100 8 2.34 (4.1)/3.91 (4.5) 48.9 (14.5) –3.67* (1.0) 13.75 (2.5) 85.38 (11.4) 94.5** (3.9)
UCL24100 13 6.73 (5.2)/8.75 (5.6) 59.2 (13.8) –2.81* (0.8) 12.25 (3.4) 76.69 (17.7) 106.7** (2.5)
The results are shown as mean values with standard deviation given within brackets.
*Significant difference p50.05.
**Significant difference p50.01.
Figure 2. Average (a) loudness and (b) annoyance ratings for the eight sounds as a function of absolute sound pressure level.
780 Å. Skagerstrand et al.
Rating tests tests showed that sounds from newspaper, documents and traffic
The average loudness and annoyance ratings, as a function of sound were rated significantly (p50.05) higher than remaining sound
pressure level, are presented in Figure 2. For all stimuli, both sources at all levels between 63 and 78 dB SPL for loudness (Figure
loudness and annoyance increased, as expected, with increasing 3(a)). Sounds from newspaper, documents and traffic were always
sound pressure level. The participants rated sounds from docu- ranked loudest with sounds from porcelain as number four (Figure
ments, newspapers and traffic as louder (by 0.5–1.0 units) than other 3(a)). The rank order of the remaining four sounds varied but the
sounds at the same sound pressure levels. The remaining five differences between the sounds were small.
sounds (from porcelain, cutlery, water, power drill and elec- A repeated measure ANOVA with level and sound source as
tric mixer) were approximately equally rated as a function of sound within-factors for the ratings of annoyance showed main effects of
pressure level. Depending on the sound source the participants rated sound pressure level (F(3,57) ¼ 249.328, p50.001) and sound type
a level between 55 and 65 dB SPL to be comfortably loud (Figure (F(7,133) ¼ 10.05, p50.001). The interaction between sound
2(a)). When the sound level reached 80 dB SPL it became very loud pressure level and sound type was significant (F(21,399) ¼ 2.327,
for all sound types. p ¼ 0.001). When the results were further analysed with paired t-
Sounds began to be perceived as annoying at 53–62 dB SPL tests it was shown that sounds from newspaper, documents and
depending on the sound type, and above 79 dB SPL they were traffic were rated as significantly (p5.05) higher than remaining
perceived as very annoying (Figure 2(b)). The annoyance ratings sound sources for levels between 68 and 78 dB SPL (Figure 3(b)).
followed the same pattern as the loudness ratings with increased None of the other t-tests were significant.
annoyance at higher sound pressure levels. Overall, at the same The predictions of the loudness model (Moore, 2014) were
sound pressure levels, sounds from newspaper and documents were calculated for levels between 63 and 78 dB SPL (Figure 3(c)). The
rated as most annoying, followed by sounds from traffic. Sounds model predicted the loudness of the newspaper sound to be slightly
from porcelain were rated about 0.5 units below the most annoying greater than the loudness for sounds from cutlery, porcelain and
sounds and sounds from water around 1 unit below the most documents. The latter three were predicted to have similar loudness
annoying sounds, with sounds from the drill, electric mixer and as a function of sound pressure level. Sounds from the electric
cutlery in between these two. mixer and traffic were predicted to be 3–5 sones less loud than the
A repeated measure ANOVA with sound source and level as top four loudest sounds, but 1–2 sones louder than the two least loud
within-factors for the rating of loudness at sound levels between 63 sounds in the study, sounds from water and the drill.
and 78 dB SPL, for which all sounds had been rated, showed main The scale for the ratings is not directly comparable to the
effects of sound pressure level (F(3,57) ¼ 266.947, p50.001) and loudness in sones predicted by the loudness model, but the rankings
sound type (F(7,133) ¼ 19.386, p50.001), but no significant of the sound can be analysed. For both predicted and rated loudness
interaction (p ¼ 0.082). To reveal the source of the significant sounds from newspaper and documents were ranked as louder than
difference between sound types, paired t-tests were conducted the other sounds. The ratings placed the traffic sounds among the
between the ratings for all sound types at the same levels. These t- four loudest sounds, in contrast to the model, where the loudness of
Figure 3. (a) Average loudness and (b) annoyance ratings at sound pressure levels between 63 and 78 dB SPL. (c) Estimated loudness of
the sounds at the sound pressure levels between 63 and 78 dB SPL based on the loudness model and (d) the geometric mean of the loudness
ratings as a function of the geometric mean of the model predicted loudness.
Disturbing sounds for normal hearing people 781
traffic sounds fell among the less loud sounds. Sounds from In this study, the sounds of the electric mixer, the power drill and
porcelain and cutlery were ranked among less loud sounds, but had cutlery had the highest recorded RMS levels, 82–83 dB SPL. Those
predicted loudness similar to that for the loudest sounds according sounds were expected to give the highest ratings for both loudness and
to the model. annoyance, which they did when comparisons were made at the
The patterns of loudness were similar across levels for all sound recorded levels, but when compared at the same absolute sound levels
types, both when rated and when estimated by the loudness model. To those sounds were perceived as the least loud sounds. This is in line
facilitate comparison of the rated and model estimated loudness for with the loudness model predictions for the power drill and electric
the sounds the geometric means of the loudness values for the four mixer (geometric means for the model of 8.3 and 10.4 sones and
sound pressure levels were computed and shown in Figure 3(d). Once geometric mean of the ratings for both sounds of 4.8). Cutlery was
again, the scales for rated and model predicted loudness are not predicted as the second loudest sound by the model (geometric mean
directly comparable, but Figure 3(d) illustrates that sound from traffic of 13.9 sones) while it was rated as one of the least loud sounds
is rated louder than predicted by the model, and that sound from (geometric mean of 4.8) (Figure 3(d)).
cutlery and porcelain is rated softer than predicted by the model. One sound that was rated as louder than predicted from the
The influence of age, UCL, sound sensitivity, HINT scores and loudness model was traffic sounds (geometric mean for the model of
WM capacity on the ratings of loudness and annoyance was 9.9 sones and geometric mean of the ratings of 5.5). Traffic sounds,
investigated by comparing the results between the subgroups typically representing sounds with a low frequency emphasis, are
(presented in Table 2). Differences in ratings of loudness and often perceived as annoying, at least for levels down to 45 dB SPL
annoyance between the groups were analysed with one-way (Miedema & Oudshoorn, 2001; Torija & Flindell, 2014). In this study,
ANOVAs. According to these analyses, significant differences the traffic sound was on average rated as comfortably loud for levels
were only found for the groups based on UCL, for whom both up to 59 dB SPL, a level slightly above the value of 55 dB SPL which is
loudness and annoyance for sounds from newspaper and water were the recommended maximum level for traffic noise near buildings in
rated higher for the subgroup with lower UCL scores than for the Sweden. Even though the sound from traffic was rated as comfortably
subgroup with higher UCL scores. loud at that level, it was at the same time rated as annoying. This
suggests that low-frequency dominated sounds, such as sounds from
traffic, can be perceived as more annoying than loud. This is contrary
Discussion
to the notion that sounds with energy in the high-frequency region
Previous studies of loudness and annoyance have often been (above 2.5 kHz) are perceived as less pleasant and therefore more
performed in groups with narrow age ranges (e.g. in Kumar et al, annoying than other sounds (Hall et al, 2013). Examples of high-
2008; Bolders et al, 2012; Schlittmeier et al, 2015). Here, the frequency dominated sounds in this study are sounds originating from
participants’ ages ranged between 24 and 71 years. A broad age paper, porcelain and cutlery. Paper sounds were rated as significantly
range enabled analysis of age-related factors that could influence louder and more annoying than the other sounds at the same sound
sound perception, but revealed no significant differences in the pressure levels. Porcelain and cutlery sounds were, in terms of
current rating result. The lack of men among the participants annoyance at a given perceived loudness, rated as similar to the other
prohibited gender analysis of the data. Previously it has been shown sounds even though they had a high-frequency emphasis. Hall et al.
that females were more disturbed by aircraft noise, especially for (2013) suggested that loudness, sharpness, and fluctuation strength
sleep quality (Janssen et al, 2014), whereas gender differences for affect the perception of annoyance. Here it seems that loudness is the
cognitive performances were task dependent (Belojevic et al, 1992). most important of those factors.
It has been shown that the loudness of time-varying sounds is
affected by changes in level over time (Neuhoff, 1998; Olsen et al,
Acoustical factors 2010). It is not clear if the loudness of time varying sounds is primarily
The results indicate that the recorded sounds, previously found as driven by the maximum stimulus level, as suggested by e.g. Ponsot
disturbing by hearing impaired subjects using hearing aids et al. (2013) and Susini et al. (2007), or by values closer to the RMS
(Skagerstrand et al, 2014), are both loud and annoying for people value (Glasberg & Moore, 2002). The sounds in the current study with
with normal hearing when presented at their recorded levels. When the largest temporal variations were sounds from porcelain, cutlery,
a sound exceeds a certain level, regardless of spectrum and temporal newspaper and documents. According to Ponsot et al. (2013) and
pattern, the sound is perceived as loud and/or annoying (Björk et al, Susini et al. (2007), these sounds should be rated as louder and more
2006; Muzet, 2007). In the present study, sound stimuli with peak annoying than the other sounds at the same sound pressure level.
levels close to 100 dB SPL and/or RMS-values above 75 dB SPL, Sounds from documents and newspaper were rated as both louder and
were rated as both very loud and very annoying. The sounds in this more annoying than the other sounds at the same RMS level (Figure
study were presented over a limited range of levels around the 2), but sounds from porcelain and cutlery were rated as being similar to
recorded levels. However, when comparing ratings at the same the other sounds. This indicates that sounds with high-frequency
absolute levels, the participants rated the sounds originating from spectral content and temporal variations are not always perceived as
paper as louder and being more annoying than the other sounds. louder and as more annoying than sounds that do not contain these
This is in line with the predictions from the loudness model for time features.
varying sounds (Moore, 2014). For that model, the overall long-
term loudness can be estimated by either the maximum or the mean
value. Both the mean (Glasberg & Moore, 2002) and the maximum Auditory and cognitive factors
value (Zorila et al, 2016) has been suggested as an estimate for In the analysis, the participants were sub-grouped according to UCL
loudness perception. In the current study, the maximum value was (Table 2), and the cut-off point was set at 100 dB SPL. As stated in the
used since a stable mean was not obtained for the more time varying methods, subjects with high or no measurable UCL were hypothesised
sounds, especially the sound from newspapers. to rate high sound levels as lower and less annoying than subjects with
782 Å. Skagerstrand et al.
lower UCLs. This result was only found for the sounds from 60–65 dB SPL, the paper sounds are at the recorded level while the
newspaper and water; otherwise, the ratings of loudness and sound level of the electric mixer is approximately 20 dB lower
annoyance were similar for the two groups. Some of the participants than recorded. This may lead to a more annoying perception of the
rated themselves as somewhat sensitive to sounds according to the paper sounds than of the electric mixer, as the latter is less loud than
Weinstein questionnaire. Even so, they rated neither loudness nor expected. For people with normal hearing, our results indicate that,
annoyance differently than the other participants. This may indicate as for the perception of loudness, the perception of annoyance is
that psychological factors not investigated in this study affected those primarily related to the sound pressure level. The results also
participants’ responses to the Weinstein questionnaire. indicate that factors other than sound level influence loudness and
The ratings of loudness and annoyance were not affected by WM annoyance ratings.
capacity as measured by the reading span test according to a one-
way ANOVA. It has been shown that WM capacity influenced
Conclusions
performance on work-related tasks in background noise (Hua et al,
2014). Commonly, the influence of WM capacity is tested with a Eight sounds, previously identified as disturbing, were rated for
dual task, imposing a high load on the WM. One possible reason for their loudness and annoyance for levels ranging by ±20 dB around
the lack of influence of WM on ratings might be that a single task the recorded levels. There was a clear influence of sound level on
was used here that is less demanding on the WM capacity. both loudness and annoyance perception. Sounds from documents
Furthermore, the influence of cognition on speech perception is and turning pages in a newspaper were rated as significantly louder
most important when testing close to speech reception thresholds and more annoying than the other sounds at the same RMS sound
(Akeroyd, 2008). When testing at supra-threshold levels, as was level. This finding may be related to spectral content and temporal
done here, the variation in WM capacity might have to be larger in variations. But other factors such as familiarity and expectations
order to show an observable effect. Loudness and annoyance may have influenced the ratings of loudness and annoyance. The
perception may also be independent of WM capacity as found here. results indicate that WM capacity does not affect the perception of
Participants with higher WM capacity showed better speech loudness and annoyance, at least for people with normal hearing.
perception in noise than participants with lower WM capacity. This is Neither age nor UCL or the results of the Weinstein questionnaire
in line with several studies that have investigated the relation between influenced the loudness and annoyance ratings. As the participants
WM capacity and speech perception under adverse conditions had normal hearing thresholds the variation in auditory measures
(Rönnberg et al, 2016). This study supports the idea that cognitive was limited.
capacity is important for demanding tasks such as perception of
speech in noise, than it is for loudness or annoyance perception.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Brian CJ Moore and two anonymous reviewers for
Attitude biased factors helpful comments on the manuscript. Part of this work was presented
The attitude towards a sound source has previously been shown to at the Third International Conference on Cognitive Hearing Science
be important for annoyance ratings (Maris et al, 2007). However, for Communication, Linköping, Sweden 2015.
this study did not gather data on attitudes towards sounds, which
might have influenced the perception of both loudness and
annoyance (Stallen, 1999). For example, noise annoyance has Declaration of interest: No potential conflict of interest was reported
been described in terms of a social psychological model (Maris et by the authors.
al, 2007) which incorporated both external processes (sound and
sound management) and internal processes (perceived disturbance
and/or control) for evaluation of annoyance. When the sound can be ORCID
controlled and adjusted, the disturbance of the sound is often Åsa Skagerstrand http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9799-8844
reduced (Maris et al, 2007). Another issue is that annoyance can be Stefan Stenfelt http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3350-8997
caused by broken concentration and/or changed attention due to the
disturbance (Boman & Enmarker, 2004). This effect was not
considered in the current study.
References
Akeroyd, M.A. 2008. Are individual differences in speech reception related
Contextual factors influencing the perception of sound to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty
Human perception of unwanted sounds depends on context as well experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J
as personal factors of the individual exposed to the sound Audiol, 47, S53–S71.
(Raimbault & Dubois, 2005). Sound disturbance is determined by Alimohammadi, I., Sandrock, S. & Gohari, M.R. 2013. The effects of low
more than the level of the sound. Therefore, to understand the frequency noise on mental performance and annoyance. Environ Monit
perception of sound, studies need to combine measures of sound Assess, 185, 7043–7051.
level and psycho-social effects. In this study, the participants were Basner, M., Babisch, W., Davis, A., Brink, M., Clark, C., et al. 2014.
asked to disregard prior knowledge of the sound and the context in Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health. Lancet, 383,
1325–1332.
which the sound normally appears. However, the difference
Belojevic, G., Ohrstrom, E. & Rylander, R. 1992. Effects of noise on mental
between loudness and annoyance ratings for sounds originating performance with regard to subjective noise sensitivity. Int Arch Occup
from documents and newspapers compared to the other sounds Environ Health, 64, 293–301.
might be an effect of expectations of the sound. When paper sounds Berglund, B., Berglund, U. & Lindvall, T. 1976. Scaling loudness, noisiness,
are compared to the sound of an electric mixer at a level of and annoyance of community noises. J Acoust Soc Am, 60, 1119–1125.
Disturbing sounds for normal hearing people 783
Björk, J., Ardö, J., Stroh, E., Lövkvist, H., Östergren, P.-O., et al. 2006. Road McCormack, A. & Fortnum, H. 2013. Why do people fitted with hearing
traffic noise in southern Sweden and its relation to annoyance, aids not wear them? Int J Audiol, 52, 360–368.
disturbance of daily activities and health. Scand J Work Environ Miedema, H.M.E. & Oudshoorn, C.G.M. 2001. Annoyance from
Health, 32, 392–401. transportation noise: Relationships with exposure metrics DNL and
Bolders, A.C., Band, G.P. & Stallen, P.J. 2012. Evaluative conditioning DENL and their confidence intervals. Environ Health Perspect, 109,
induces changes in sound valence. Front Psychol, 3, 106. 409–416.
Boman, E. & Enmarker, I. 2004. Factors affecting pupils’ noise annoyance Moore, B.C.J. 2004. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. London:
in schools: The building and testing of models. Environ Behav, 36, 207– Elsevier Academic Press.
228. Moore, B.C.J. 2014. Development and current status of the ‘‘Cambridge’’
Canlon, B., Theorell, T. & Hasson, D. 2013. Associations between stress and loudness models. Trends Hear, 18, 1–29.
hearing problems in humans. Hear Res, 295, 9–15. Muzet, A. 2007. Environmental noise, sleep and health. Sleep Med Rev, 11,
Cox, R.M., Alexander, G.C., Taylor, I.M. & Gray, G.A. 1997. The contour 135–142.
test of loudness perception. Ear Hear, 18, 388–400. Neuhoff, J.G. 1998. Perceptual bias for rising tones. Nature, 395, 123–124.
Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P.A. 1980. Individual differences in working Oberfeld, D. & Klockner-Nowotny, F. 2016. Individual differences in
memory and reading. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav, 19, 450–466. selective attention predict speech identification at a cocktail party. Elife,
Fletcher, H. & Munson, W.A. 1933. Loudness, its definition, measurement 5, e16747. doi:10.7554/eLife.16747
and calculation. Bell Syst Techn J, 12, 377–430. Olsen, K.N., Stevens, C.J. & Tardieu, J. 2010. Loudness change in response
Fullgrabe, C., Moore, B.C.J. & Stone, M.A. 2015. Age-group differences in to dynamic acoustic intensity. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 36,
speech identification despite matched audiometrically normal hearing: 1631–1644.
Contributions from auditory temporal processing and cognition. Front Ponsot, E., Susini, P., Saint Pierre, G. & Meunier, S. 2013. Temporal
Aging Neurosci, 6, 347. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2014.00347. loudness weights for sounds with increasing and decreasing intensity
Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, A. & Öhrström, E. 2007. Noise and well-being in urban profiles. J Acoust Soc Am, 134, EL321–EL326.
residential environments: The potential role of perceived availability to Raimbault, M. & Dubois, D. 2005. Urban soundscapes: Experiences and
nearby green areas. Landsc Urban Plan, 83, 115–126. knowledge. Cities, 22, 339–350.
Glasberg, B.R. & Moore, B.C.J. 2002. A model of loudness applicable to Robinson, K. & Gatehouse, S. 1996. Test–retest reliability of loudness
time-varying sounds. J Audio Eng Soc, 50, 331–342. scaling. Ear Hear, 17, 120–123.
Hall, D.A., Irwin, A., Edmondson-Jones, M., Phillips, S. & Poxon, J.E.W. Rönnberg, J., Arlinger, S., Lyxell, B. & Kinnefors, C. 1989. Visual evoked
2013. An exploratory evaluation of perceptual, psychoacoustic and potentials: Relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. J
acoustical properties of urban soundscapes. Appl Acoust, 74, 248–254.
Speech Hear Res, 32, 725–735.
Hällgren, M., Larsby, B. & Arlinger, S. 2006. A Swedish version of the
Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Ng, E.H.N., Lidestam, B., Zekveld, A.A., et al.
Hearing In Noise Test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition.
2016. Hearing impairment, cognition and speech understanding:
Int J Audiol, 45, 227–237.
Exploratory factor analyses of a comprehensive test battery
Holm Pedersen, T. 2007. In: Holm Pedersen, T. (ed.) The ‘‘Genlyd’’ Noise
for a group of hearing aid users, the n200 study. Int J Audiol, 55,
Annoyance Model. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Electronics, Light &
623–642.
Acoustics, DELTA, p. 121.
Schlittmeier, S.J., Feil, A., Liebl, A. & Hellbruck, J. 2015. The impact of
Hua, H., Emilsson, M., Kahari, K., Widen, S., Moller, C., et al. 2014. The
road traffic noise on cognitive performance in attention-based tasks
impact of different background noises: effects on cognitive performance
depends on noise level even within moderate-level ranges. Noise Health,
and perceived disturbance in employees with aided hearing impairment
17, 148–157.
and normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol, 25, 859–868.
SIS. 2002. Acoustics – Assessment of noise annoyance by means of social
IEC. 2012. Electroacoustics – Audiometric equipment – Part 1: Equipment
and socio-acoustic surveys. Stockholm: Swedish Standards Institute.
for pure-tone audiometry. Geneva: International Electrotechnical
Sjodin, F., Kjellberg, A., Knutsson, A., Landstrom, U. & Lindberg, L. 2012.
Commission.
Irwin, A., Hall, D.A., Peters, A. & Plack, C.J. 2011. Listening to urban Noise exposure and auditory effects on preschool personnel. Noise
soundscapes: Physiological validity of perceptual dimensions. Health, 14, 72–82.
Psychophysiology, 48, 258–268. Skagerstrand, Å., Stenfelt, S., Arlinger, S. & Wikström, J. 2014. Sounds
Jahncke, H., Hygge, S., Halin, N., Green, A.M. & Dimberg, K. 2011. Open- perceived as annoying by hearing-aid users in their daily soundscape. Int
plan office noise: Cognitive performance and restoration. J Environ J Audiol, 53, 259–269.
Psychol, 31, 373–382. Sorqvist, P., Stenfelt, S. & Ronnberg, J. 2012. Working memory capacity
Janssen, S.A., Centen, M.R., Vos, H. & van Kamp, I. 2014. The effect of the and visual-verbal cognitive load modulate auditory-sensory gating in the
number of aircraft noise events on sleep quality. Appl Acoust, 84, 9–16. brainstem: Toward a unified view of attention. J Cogn Neurosci, 24,
Kochkin, S. 2005. MarkeTrak. VII: Customer satisfaction with hearing 2147–2154.
instruments in the digital age. Hear J, 58, 30. 32–34, 38–40, 42–43. Stallen, P.J. 1999. A theoretical framework for environmental noise
Kumar, S., Forster, H.M., Bailey, P. & Griffiths, T.D. 2008. Mapping annoyance. Noise Health, 1, 69–80.
unpleasantness of sounds to their auditory representation. J Acoust Soc Stansfeld, S.A. & Matheson, M.P. 2003. Noise pollution: Non-auditory
Am, 124, 3810–3817. effects on health. Br Med Bull, 68, 243–257.
Laszlo, H.E., McRobie, E.S., Stansfeld, S.A. & Hansell, A.L. 2012. Susini, P., McAdams, S. & Smith, B.K. 2007. Loudness asymmetries for
Annoyance and other reaction measures to changes in noise exposure tones with increasing and decreasing levels using continuous and global
— A review. Sci Total Environ, 435–436, 551–562. ratings. Acta Acust United Acust, 93, 623–631.
Lee, P.J. & Jeon, J.Y. 2013. Relating traffic, construction, and ventilation Torija, A.J. & Flindell, I.H. 2014. Listening laboratory study of low height
noise to cognitive performances and subjective perceptions. J Acoust Soc roadside noise barrier performance compared against in-situ field data.
Am, 134, 2765–2772. Build Environ, 81, 216–225.
Maris, E., Stallen, P.J., Vermunt, R. & Steensma, H. 2007. Noise within the Weinstein, N.D. 1978. Individual differences in reactions to noise: A
social context: Annoyance reduction through fair procedures. J Acoust longitudinal study in a college dormitory. J Appl Psychol, 63, 458–466.
Soc Am, 121, 2000–2010. Zorila, T.C., Stylianou, Y., Flanagan, S. & Moore, B.C.J. 2016.
Mattys, S.L., Davis, M.H., Bradlow, A.R. & Scott, S.K. 2012. Speech Effectiveness of a loudness model for time-varying sounds in equating
recognition in adverse conditions: A review. Lang Cogn Process, 27, the loudness of sentences subjected to different forms of signal
953–978. processing. J Acoust Soc Am, 140, 402.