Individual differences in objective effects of noise on performance were analyzed with respect to their distribution, temporal stability, and the precision of measurement to be attained. Seventy-two subjects had to memorize sequences of visually presented digits while being exposed to one of three auditory background conditions which were randomly mixed on a trial-by-trial basis: (1) foreign speech; (2) pink noise; and (3) silence. Individual "irrelevant speech effects," operationalized by the difference in recall errors under speech and in silence, were normally distributed over a wide range extending from slight facilitation to severe disruption. When 25 subjects repeated the experiment after four weeks, the individual differences were replicated with a reliability of rtt = 0.45. Internal consistency, a measure of the precision with which individual effects can be measured in a single session, was moderate (alpha = 0.55). However, both retest, and consistency coefficients are severely attenuated by the use of (sound-minus-silence) difference scores, the reliability of which is bound to be considerably lower than that of the original error scores whenever these are correlated. Given that the original error rates in a specific auditory condition can be determined with reliabilities approaching 0.85, it may be concluded that individual performance decrements due to noise can be reliably measured in the "irrelevant speech" paradigm. Self-report measures of noise susceptibility collected to explore potential sources of the large inter-individual variation exhibited only weak relationships with the objectively measured noise effects: Subjects were quite inaccurate in assessing their individual impairment in the three auditory conditions, and a questionnaire-based measure of general noise sensitivity only accounted for a small portion of the variance in objectively measured performance decrements, although in both cases the predictive relationship was much stronger in female than in male subjects.

In order to investigate gender differences in pain perception, the present study employed both a psychophysical and a psychophysiological measure. In experiment 1, 20 subjects rated the painfulness of 4 different levels of tonic pressure applied to their fingers using a verbally anchored categorization procedure. In general agreement with studies of pain threshold and tolerance, female subjects reported greater pain at high levels of stimulation, with no gender difference being evident at low pressure levels. In experiment 2, 16 different subjects were exposed to the same painful pressure stimuli while measuring their pupil reactions using infrared video pupillometry. The pupil dilations seen during the last 10 sec of the 20-sec pressure application turned out to be a highly significant indicator of pain intensity. When female and male subjects were compared on this measure, a similar divergent pattern as in the psychophysical data emerged, with female subjects showing greater pupil dilations at high pressure levels only. The fact that gender differences in pain perception can be demonstrated using an autonomic indicator of pain that is beyond voluntary control suggests that these differences reflect low-level sensory and/or affective components of pain rather than attitudinal or response-bias factors.

A series of experiments explored the role of level, signal-to-noise ratio, and the masking-level difference in the irrelevant speech effect (ISE). In Experiment 1 the detrimental effects of irrelevant sound on serial recall were found to be the same whether the material (speech or music) was presented at a high (75 dB[A]) or low (60 dB[A]) overall level. In Experiment 2, adding pink noise to the speech signal produced a linear improvement in performance with decreasing speech-to-noise ratios. In Experiment 3 the contribution of binaural unmasking to the ISE was found to be negligible. The results (a) confirm that the segmented, changing nature of the irrelevant sound is crucial in producing the ISE and (b) suggest that the adverse effects of disruptive auditory input may be alleviated by introducing additional uniform masking noise.

No abstract

No abstract