Does the Macro-Temporal Pattern of Road Traffic Noise Affect Noise Annoyance and Cognitive Performance?

Abstract

Noise annoyance is usually estimated based on time-averaged noise metrics. However, such metrics ignore other potentially important acoustic characteristics, in particular the macro-temporal pattern of sounds as constituted by quiet periods (noise breaks). Little is known to date about its effect on noise annoyance and cognitive performance, e.g., during work. This study investigated how the macro-temporal pattern of road traffic noise affects short-term noise annoyance and cognitive performance in an attention-based task. In two laboratory experiments, participants worked on the Stroop task, in which performance relies predominantly on attentional functions, while being exposed to different road traffic noise scenarios. These were systematically varied in macro-temporal pattern regarding break duration and distribution (regular, irregular), and played back with moderate LAeq of 42–45 dB(A). Noise annoyance ratings were collected after each scenario. Annoyance was found to vary with the macro-temporal pattern: It decreased with increasing total duration of quiet periods. Further, shorter but more regular breaks were somewhat less annoying than longer but irregular breaks. Since Stroop task performance did not systematically vary with different noise scenarios, differences in annoyance are not moderated by experiencing worsened performance but can be attributed to differences in the macro-temporal pattern of road traffic noise.

Traffic Noise at Moderate Levels Affects Cognitive Performance: Do Distance-Induced Temporal Changes Matter?

“…The main research question of this study was whether distance-induced temporal changes in traffic noise affect cognitive performance. While the distribution of the lowest number of errors presented in Figure 8a seems to support our research hypothesis that the Close noise has a higher impact on cognitive performance than the Far noise, none of the performed statistical analyses confirms that this difference is actually significant, which aligns with the findings of Schaeffer et al [26]. This could either indicate that the time structure does not play a major role in the human response to traffic noise at moderate levels or that the used methods are not sensitive enough to detect a possible effect.…”

“…While research showed that factors such as noise level [24] and frequency composition [25] may be of relevance for the human response, it is currently unclear whether these temporal differences matter. Schaeffer et al [26] performed a study investigating the effect of macro-temporal changes in traffic noise on annoyance and cognitive performance, and they found that while shorter but regular breaks between individual vehicle passages were perceived as less annoying than longer but irregular breaks, cognitive performance as assessed in an attention-based Stroop task [27] did not vary with noise time structure. The differences in macro-temporal traffic noise distribution of this study were implemented by varying the duration of quiet periods between different vehicle pass-by events while maintaining the overall L Aeq .…”

Effect of low-frequency noise exposure on cognitive function: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Our initial literature search revealed numerous studies on noise and the relationship between noise and cognitive functions. Nevertheless, most of these studies primarily focused on environmental noise, traffic noise, or medium- to high- frequency noise in a broader sense [ 43 – 45 ]. The volume of studies specifically addressing LFN was notably limited, and views on the impact of LFN on cognitive functions were diverse.…”

Airborne sound insulation and noise annoyance: Implications of listening test methodology

“…Considering multiple noise events, their macro-temporal pattern also affects annoyance; the number of events, duration of quiet periods in between, and regularity of events all have an impact [14].…”

“…Comparing cognitive performance as a measure of distraction may help to elucidate the annoyance mechanism, as done in [14]. Aside from the activity of the listeners and regarding the stimuli presentation, natural playback levels should be preferred over heightened levels.…”