Annoyance from and habituation to road traffic noise from urban expressways

Vallet, Michel; Maurin, Michel; Page, M. A.; Favre, B; Pachiaudi, G

doi:10.1016/s0022-460x(78)80121-7

Cited by 34 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…About 10% of the variance in Buchta's individual annoyance ratings was explained by A,SEL, a percentage that is quite consistent with the relatively low r 2 values found in related studies [see, e.g., Vallet et al (1978) and Yeowart et al (1977) ]. However, a multiple linear regression analysis showed that when in addition to A,SEL, the number of impulses was also taken into account, the explained variance increased from 10% to 15%.…”

Section: Tni]supporting

confidence: 86%

L eq as a measure of annoyance caused by gunfire consisting of impulses with various proportions of higher and lower sound levels

Vos

Geurtsen

1987

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a method of rating sounds with respect to the expected community response, ISO(1971). ISO R 1996, "Assessment of noise with respect to community response" (International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland), recommends the measurement of the Aweighted equivalent sound level Leq. The usefulness of Leq for road-traffic sounds has been demonstrated in various studies. For impulse sounds, however, research into the adequacy of Leq has been very limited. The present laboratory study provides a further test of the adequacy of Leq as a descriptor of annoyance. in one condition, all impulse sounds had the same level, whereas in the other eight conditions the levels of the impulses could differ either by 6 or by 12 dB. The proportions of the impulses with high or low sound levels were 90% vs 10%, 75% vs 25%, and vice versa. Sixteen subjects compared the annoyance caused by the impulse sounds (G) with the annoyance due to road-traffic sounds (T). They adjusted the level of either T or G in such a way that these sounds were just as annoying as the standard G [Leq = 40 dB(A) ] or T [Leq = 45 dB(A) ] sounds. The results from one group of subjects showed that the degree of annoyance was about the same for all conditions, whereas the results from another group of subjects showed that Leq may overestimate the annoyance in at least some conditions. The present data, therefore, mildly support the effectiveness of Leq as a predictor of annoyance.

show abstract

Section: Tni]supporting

confidence: 86%

L eq as a measure of annoyance caused by gunfire consisting of impulses with various proportions of higher and lower sound levels

Vos

Geurtsen

1987

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings are in agreement with data reported by Yeowart, et al . [20], but slightly diverge from data obtained by Vallet, et al [18], who report that vehicle flow measures do improve predictions of annoyance only as experienced in the evening (10:00 p.m.midnight) and at night (midnight -5:00 a.m.).…”

Section: Reliability Of Noise Exposure Indices In Predicting Communitcontrasting

confidence: 64%

“…This general adverse response is complex and involves a combination of factors. Including speech interference, sleep Interference, a frustrated desire for quiet, and the inability to use telephone, radio, and TV satisfactorily [17][18][19][20][21][22].…”

Section: Social Survey Data; Overall Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of time-varying noise on annoyance :

Yaniv¹,

Bauer²,

Danner³

et al. 1981

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report summarizes the literature dealing with the adverse response of people to time-varying noise, and Identifies both the acoustlal and nonacoustlcal factors that Influence the relationship between time-varying noise and annoyance. An examination of the laboratory research concerned with the functional relationship between annoyance and the temporal and acoustic parameters of noise shows the tenuousness of such relationships. The adequacy of currently used and/or proposed rating procedures for predicting subjective response to time-varying noise is examined. Critical gaps In current knowledge are identified.

show abstract

“…Noise level is associated with annoyance in a dose-response relationship in both traffic and aircraft noise studies (McKennell, 1963;Griffiths & Langdon, 1968;Schultz, 1978;Tarnopolsky & Morton Williams, 1980). While average population measures of noise annoyance (either mean or median) agree fairly strongly with noise exposure (mean r = 0-82); Job, 1988), the association between individuals' annoyance responses and noise exposure is very much smaller (mean r = 0-42; Job, 1988;Griffiths & Langdon, 1968;Langdon, 19766;Schultz, 1978;Vallet et al 1978;Jonah et al 1981). That is to say, at any particular noise exposure level there is a wide individual variation in the degree of annoyance felt or expressed.…”

Section: Noise and Non-noise Predictors Of The Annoyance Responsementioning

confidence: 98%