|
| Article Access Statistics | | | Viewed | 10158 | | | Printed | 302 | | | Emailed | 3 | | | PDF Downloaded | 36 | | | Comments | [Add] | | | Cited by others | 30 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Year : 2009
| Volume
: 11 | Issue : 45 | Page
: 194-198 |
|
| Effects of road traffic noise and irrelevant speech on children's reading and mathematical performance |
|
Robert Ljung, Patrik Sorqvist, Staffan Hygge
Laboratory of Applied Psychology, Centre for Built Environment, University of Gävle, Sweden
Click here for correspondence address
and email
| Date of Web Publication | 2-Oct-2009 |
|
|
 |
|
|
Irrelevant speech in classrooms and road traffic noise adjacent to schools have a substantial impact on children's ability to learn. Comparing the effects of different noise sources on learning may help construct guidelines for noise abatement programs. Experimental studies are important to establish dose-response relationships and to expand our knowledge beyond correlation studies. This experiment examined effects of road traffic noise and irrelevant speech on children's reading speed, reading comprehension, basic mathematics, and mathematical reasoning. A total of 187 pupils (89 girls and 98 boys), 12-13 years old, were tested in their ordinary classrooms. Road traffic noise was found to impair reading speed (P < 0.01) and basic mathematics (P < 0.05). No effect was found on reading comprehension or on mathematical reasoning. Irrelevant speech did not disrupt performance on any task. These findings are related to previous research on noise in schools and the implications for noise abatement guidelines are discussed. Keywords: Children, irrelevant speech, mathematics, reading comprehension, reading speed, road traffic noise
How to cite this article:
Ljung R, Sorqvist P, Hygge S. Effects of road traffic noise and irrelevant speech on children's reading and mathematical performance. Noise Health 2009;11:194-8 |
| Introduction | |  |
The American National Standards Institute emphasizes that school buildings' sound isolation should prevent two types of noise: noise that intrudes into the classroom from sources outside of the school building envelope, which include vehicular traffic, aircrafts, industrial plants, and activity in schoolyards and noise that originates within the school building such as unwanted speech. [1] The present investigation aimed to compare the effects of road traffic noise and irrelevant speech on cognitive performance in schools.
A range of epidemiological studies have shown that noise has negative effects on memory and learning, e.g. Hygge, Evans and Bullinger [2] performed a prospective longitudinal study on children during the switchover from Munich's old airport to the new Munich International Airport. Their results showed that chronic aircraft noise impaired reading and long-term memory. Another more recent cross-national epidemiological study is the Road traffic and Aircraft Noise exposure and children's Cognition and Health (RANCH) project. In this project, Clark et al.[3] compared the effects of chronic exposure to aircraft noise and road traffic noise on reading comprehension. A total of 2844 pupils around Amsterdam Schiphol, Madrid Barajas, and London Heathrow participated in the study. Aircraft noise exposure was negatively correlated with children's reading comprehension (this findings was still statistically significant after adjustments for socioeconomic variables). Road traffic noise showed no significant effect on reading comprehension. However, another paper from the same project found that road traffic noise exposure was linearly associated with performance on an episodic memory task. [4] For a more detailed account of chronic transport noise effects see Clark and Stansfeld. [5]
Studies of chronic noise exposure are important to our understanding of the relationship between noise and school performance. Unfortunately, such studies always have to deal with confounding variables. The fact that poorer quality schools are more common in socially deprived areas, which are also more likely to be exposed to high levels of noise, [6] means that such studies often have problems with confounding variables like socioeconomic background and social deprivation. A statistical adjustment may decrease the confounding effect, but the confounding variables do not vanish. One way to attenuate the influence from confounding variables is to run experimental studies.
The effects of noise exposure on children's cognitive performance have also been addressed in experimental investigations. [7],[8],[9] During the past 5 years, several investigations have compared the effect of road traffic noise and irrelevant speech on children's school performance. For example, Hygge, Boman and Enmarker [10] found both road traffic noise and meaningful irrelevant speech to impair children's delayed memory of a text. Further, Boman [11] reported a disruptive effect of irrelevant speech on children's memory of a text. However, the authors of these investigations did not control for children's immediate reading comprehension. Hence, the effects of noise on text retention could rather be an effect of impaired comprehension. The present study aimed to fill this gap by comparing the effects of road traffic noise and irrelevant speech on children's immediate reading comprehension.
Johansson [12] measured reading comprehension and reading speed by letting 10-year-old children read short stories under silence (25 dB) and two octave band noise conditions (continuous noise at 51 dB or intermittent noise at 55-78 dB). At certain stages in each story the children had to underline one out of three words to make the story comprehensible. The results revealed no main effects of noise, neither on reading comprehension nor on reading speed, but children with low intelligence were more affected by noise than children with high intelligence. Studies of adults have found that performance on language-based tasks that involve semantic processing such as reading comprehension [13],[14],[15] and proofreading [16],[17] are particularly affected by sounds with semantic meaning (i.e., speech). This is well in-line with studies of more basic cognitive processes, such as attentional processes involved in the retention of information in short-term memory. [18],[19] Against this background, it is likely that Johansson would have obtained a main effect of noise if he had included speech as a noise source. Consistent with this assumption, Boman [11] found irrelevant speech to disturb children's performance on a word comprehension test, whereas the effect of road traffic noise failed to reach significance. The same result could be expected for children's reading comprehension. This hypothesis is tested in the present investigation.
Shield and Dockrell [20] performed an innovative study where they examined both acute and chronic noise exposure. They showed that chronic exposure to both external and internal noise has a negative impact upon the academic performance and attainments of primary school children. For external noise, it appears to be the noise levels of individual events that have the most impact, while background noise in the classroom also has a significant disruptive effect. Older primary school children, around 11 years of age, appear to be more affected by noise than the younger children. Classroom babble was found to decrease performance on both verbal and nonverbal tasks, with verbal tasks of reading and spelling being particularly affected, which is in-line with the interference-by-process view described by Marsh, Hughes and Jones. [18],[19]
The effects of noise on children's arithmetic performance have been subject to rather few investigations. This is somewhat surprising given the significance of mathematics in school education. The present study therefore aimed to compare the effects of road traffic noise and irrelevant speech on mathematical performance. Kassinove [21] tested the effects of four noise sources with or without semantic content on children's ability to solve addition or division problems. He analyzed mean time per response, variability of response time, probability of error, number of correct responses, number of "time-outs," and changes in these behaviors over time and found no effects of noise whatsoever. But later investigations in the area of arithmetic have shown diverse results. Zentall and Shaw [22] compared the effects of high-level noise (continuous fragments of meaningful irrelevant speech at 69 dB) with that of low-level noise (infrequent fragments of meaningful irrelevant speech at 64 dB). No overall effect of noise was found, but hyperactive children performed worse in high-level noise in comparison to low-level noise, while controls showed the opposite pattern. Similarly, Johansson [12] found that children with high intelligence performed better on an arithmetic task under noise than in silence, whereas the opposite pattern was found for children with low intelligence. In a more recent investigation, Dockrell and Shield [23] tested children's arithmetic performance under three background conditions (silence, children babble, and children babble with environmental noise). Performance was better in silence than under exposure to children babble. However, performance in the "children with environmental noise"-condition did not differ from performance under the other two background conditions.
The tasks used by Kassinove, [21] Zentall and Shaw, [22] Johansson [12] , and Dockrell and Shield [23] were all restricted to arithmetic calculations (addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication). However, mathematical problems can also be represented in a word form. Solving such mathematical reasoning problems requires the equation to be constructed from the meaning of the words and is a rather complex task. Some results lean toward the possibility that complex tasks are particularly sensitive to disturbance from noise. [24] Hence, effects of noise on mathematical reasoning tasks can also be expected.
The present experiment had three purposes. First, it aimed to compare the effects of road traffic noise and irrelevant speech on children's reading comprehension and reading speed. Secondly, it aimed to compare the effects of these noise sources on children's basic mathematics; and thirdly, on children's performance on a mathematical reasoning task.
| Method | | |
Participants and basic design
Nine school classes with a total of 187 children (89 girls and 98 boys) aged 12-13 years were recruited from a medium sized city in Sweden. To prevent confounding variables like socioeconomic factors, large schools with many parallel classes in each age group were chosen, and the same school was represented in all conditions. This age range was chosen because it is the oldest group of children in Sweden who mainly use one particular "home classroom." One participant was excluded prior to the analysis due to not following the instructions. Each class was paid 1500 SEK to participate and was randomly assigned to three independent groups: road traffic noise (N = 50), irrelevant speech (N = 66), and silence (N = 70).
Performance tests
Reading test. This test was used to measure reading speed and comprehension. It was very similar to the one used in Johansson. [12] The test consisted of a four-page story. With regular intervals there was a critical choice point. At these points, three words were presented. Each word was grammatically correct in the phrase in which they occurred, but two of them were wrong in the context. The task was to underline the word that was correct in the context. Reading speed was measured as the amount of underlined words. Reading comprehension was measured as the amount of correct responses. Maximum score was 40 points and the time limit for the task was 15 min. The following is an excerpt from the text:
I observed him (carefully/uninterestingly/barely) from my hiding place. He had the face of an Eskimo, but I had seen such people earlier here at the West Coast. They often spoke English with an accent and were difficult to understand.
Basic mathematics
This test consisted of arithmetical and geometrical problems. The arithmetical tasks were division (three problems) and multiplication (three problems). The geometrical problems were naming points in a coordinate system (two problems), understanding of the relationship between fractional expressions and areas of figures (four problems), understanding of the relationship between distance and numerical expressions (two problems), and measuring of distances (two problems). All participants had pencil, eraser, and ruler to help during the test. The maximum score on the task was 16. The time limit was 15 min.
Mathematical reasoning test
The reasoning test consisted of problems expressed in a word form and had a numerical solution. The maximum score was 7 points and the time limit was 15 min. The following problem was included in the test:
If Mary was three years younger than she is now, she would be exactly half the age she will be in three years from now. How old is Mary now?
Word comprehension test
This test was used to measure children's verbal ability. The results from this test were used as a covariate in the statistical analyses to control for participants' general cognitive ability, to double check the randomization and to reduce error variance. The word comprehension test contained 10 target words. Each target word was accompanied with five multiple-choice words; one was synonymous with the target word. The children were instructed to mark the synonymous word. The maximum score was 10 points and there was no time limit, but all pupils finished within 6 min.
Noise
In the noise conditions, digital recordings of road traffic noise or irrelevant speech were played back through loudspeakers at the front of the classroom. The equivalent sound level (Leq) in the noise conditions was set to 66 dBA 2 m in front of the loudspeakers. The road traffic noise recording was made up of a background of continuous road traffic noise (~62 dBA) with superimposed segments of trucks passing by. The peaks in the superimposed segments were at 78 dBA, occurred on average once per minute, and were of different durations. The irrelevant speech recording consisted of background babble (~62 dBA). Segments from a conversation between teenagers, only one person talking at the time, were superimposed on the babble background to match the dBA-against-time history of the road traffic noise. The background babble had no discernable meaning, while the conversation did. The dominant frequency range for the road traffic noise (100-300 Hz) was lower than that for the irrelevant speech (500-1500 Hz).
Procedure
The experiment was executed in the home classrooms. All children sat at their ordinary desks and worked on the tasks individually. All experimental sessions were held before lunch time and lasted for approximately 1 hour, respectively. At the outset, the children were informed that the study was about noise. They were told that they would be given separate instructions and time limits ahead of each task. All children began performing the word comprehension test in silence. In order to compensate for fatigue effects, the sequences of the other three tasks were counterbalanced by a Latin-square design.
| Results | | |
All statistical analyses were performed in SPSS 16.0 for Windows. The correlation between performance in the word comprehension test and in the other tasks was significant in each case [Table 1]. The word comprehension score in the three groups did not differ significantly [Table 2]. The statistical analyses yielded similar results with and without using the word comprehension test as a covariate. Therefore, only analyses without the covariate are reported here.
Reading test
Reading speed within each group is displayed in [Table 2]. A one-way analysis of variance found a significant effect of noise and post hoc Bonferroni adjusted t-tests revealed that Reading speed was slower in the road traffic noise condition than in the silent condition, P < 0.01, and in the irrelevant speech condition, P < 0.01. The difference between silence and irrelevant speech was non-significant. Thus, reading speed was slowed down by road traffic noise, but not by irrelevant speech.
To test whether noise disrupts reading comprehension, we calculated the proportion of the answered items that were correct. These data are summarized in [Table 2]. An analysis of variance with the proportion of correct answers on the reading comprehension test as dependent variable found no significant effect on noise. Hence, neither road traffic noise nor irrelevant speech disrupted reading comprehension.
Basic mathematics
The mean scores on the basic mathematical problems are shown in [Table 2]. A one-way analysis of variance with basic mathematics as dependent variable revealed an effect of noise, and post hoc Bonferroni adjusted t-tests revealed that road traffic noise reduced performance relative to silence, P < 0.05. No other comparison was significant.
Mathematical reasoning
As shown in [Table 2], the differences between conditions in the mean score on the mathematical reasoning test under noise and quiet conditions were very small and nonsignificant.
| Discussion | | |
This experiment tested the effects of road traffic noise and irrelevant speech on children's reading comprehension, reading speed, basic mathematics, and mathematical reasoning. Reading comprehension was not impaired by any of the noise sources. These results are in line with Johansson [12] who found no effect of octave band noise on a similar reading comprehension task. A relatively large body of research has shown that people's performance on tasks involving semantic processing, such as reading comprehension, is particularly impaired by the semantic meaning in speech sounds. [13],[14],[18],[25] The absence of speech effects in the present investigation is therefore probably a result of the relative absence of semantic meaning in the speech sound. However, we found children's reading speed to be slowed down by road traffic noise. Given that comprehension was not impaired by noise, but speed was, this finding suggests that children either had to spend more time on backtracking through the text while reading in road traffic noise because their encoding was disturbed or they had to spend more time on encoding as they worked through the text without backtracking. Further experiments are needed to disentangle these two alternative interpretations.
Reading comprehension and reading speed are of course linked together, at least when it comes to a reading test with time limit. Measurements of reading speed are not reported in the RANCH study. In the Munich study, they measured reading speed, but they found no significant effect of noise exposure. However, it would be fruitful to develop a reading comprehension test that blocks the possibility to backtrack in the text; such a test would provide the opportunity to separate reading comprehension from reading speed.
Children's performance in the basic mathematics task was hampered by road traffic noise, but not by irrelevant speech. Hence, in contrast with the results reported by Kassinove, [21] the results reported here show that noise can have an effect on basic mathematics. However, there was no effect of noise on the mathematical reasoning task. These results were somewhat surprising since mathematical reasoning involves complex processing, and complex span tasks seems especially sensitive to noise effects.
Why is road traffic noise particularly disruptive to cognitive performance? To answer this question, it may be useful to address a study by Shield and Dockrell. They found that the noise parameter with the highest and most significant correlations with test scores was L A max , implying that noise of individual events may be the most important in affecting children's performance. This could be true for the present study too, since the road traffic noise we used had superimposed segments of trucks passing by. The peaks in the superimposed segments occurred on average once per minute. Thus, one possible interpretation could be that loud short events are the main problem with road traffic noise. Shield and Dockrell [20] suggested that the setting and the internal layout of a school should be such that classrooms are not exposed to high levels of noise from external sources such as road traffic. Another way to reduce the school children's noise exposure from road traffic is to plan heavy traffic to late hours, after school time.
There is a lot of good research regarding chronic noise exposure and cognitive performance, health, disturbance etc. The RANCH project and the Munich study have given us a wide knowledge about the relationship between chronic noise exposure and school performance. But, experimental studies in the field of noise and cognitive school performance show diverse results. Thus, further experimental studies are required to determine how and why different noises affect different cognitive abilities. An extension would be to look into how different levels of each noise source affects different abilities, and a credible dose-response curve could be established, which would be essential source of knowledge when new standards are to be established.
| Acknowledgement | | |
Authors would like to thank Mεrten Eriksson for the suggestion of using a word comprehension test as a covariate.
| References | | |
| 1. | ANSI S12.60-2002. Acoustical performance criteria, design requirements, and guidelines for schools. American National Standards Institute; 2002.  |
| 2. | Hygge S, Evans GW, Bullinger M. A prospective study of some effects of aircraft noise on cognitive performance in school children. Psychol Sci 2002;13:469-74. |
| 3. | Clark C, Martin R, van Kempen E, Alfred T, Head J, Davies HW,et al. Exposure-effect relations between aircraft and road traffic noise exposure at school and reading comprehension: the RANCH project. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:27-37. |
| 4. | Stansfeld SA, Berglund B, Clark C, Lopez-Barrio I, Fischer P, Ohrstrφm E, et al. Aircraft and road traffic noise and children's cognition and health: a crossnational study. Lancet 2005;365:1942-9. |
| 5. | Clark C, Stansfeld SA. The effect of transportation noise on health and cognitive development: a review of recent evidence. Int J Comp Psychol 2007;20:145-58. |
| 6. | Haines MM, Stansfeld SA, Head J, Job RF. Multilevel modeling of aircraft noise on performance tests in schools around Heathrow Airport London. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2002;56:139-44. |
| 7. | Evans GW, Lepore SJ. Nonauditory effects of noise on children: A critical review. Child Environ 1993;10:31-51. |
| 8. | Shield BM, Dockrell JE. The effects of noise on children at school: A review. Journal of Building Acoustics, 2003;102:97-116. |
| 9. | Beaman CP. Auditory distraction from low-intensity noise: A review of the consequences for learning and workplace environments. Appl Cogn Psychol 2005;19:1041-64. |
| 10. | Hygge S, Boman E, Enmarker I. The effects of road traffic noise and meaningful irrelevant speech on different memory systems. Scand J Psychol 2003;44:13-21. |
| 11. | Boman E. The effects of noise and gender on children's episodic and semantic memory. Scand J Psychol 2004;45:407-16. |
| 12. | Johansson CR. Effects of low intensity, continuous and intermittent noise on mental performance and writing pressure of children with different intelligence and personality characteristics. Ergonomics 1983;26:275-88. |
| 13. | Martin RC, Wogalter MS, Forlano JG. Reading comprehension in the presence of unattended speech and music. J Memory Lang 1988;27:382-98. |
| 14. | Oswald CJ, Tremblay S, Jones DM. Disruption of comprehension by the meaning of irrelevant sound. Memory 2000;8:345-50. |
| 15. | Sφrqvist P, Halin N, Hygge S. Individual differences in susceptibility to the effects of speech on reading comprehension. Appl Cogn Psychol Published online in Wiley Inter Science 2009DOI: 10.1002/acp.1543 |
| 16. | Jones DM, Miles C, Page J. Disruption of proofreading by irrelevant speech: Effects of attention, arousal or memory? Appl Cogn Psychol 1990;4:89-108. |
| 17. | Venetjoki N, Kaarlela-Tuomaala A, Keskinen E, Hongisto V. The effect of speech and speech intelligibility on task performance. Ergonomics 2006;49:1068-91. |
| 18. | Marsh JE, Hughes RW, Jones DM. Auditory distraction in semantic memory: A process-based approach. J Memory Lang 2008;58:682-700. |
| 19. | Marsh JE, Hughes RW, Jones DM. Interference by process, not content, determines semantic auditory distraction. Cognition 2009;110:23-38. |
| 20. | Shield BM, Dockrell JE. The effects of environmental and classroom noise on the academic attainments of primary school children. J Acoust Soc Am 2008;123:133-44. |
| 21. | Kassinove H. Effects of meaningful auditory stimulation on children's scholastic performance. J Educ Psychol 1972;63:526-30. |
| 22. | Zentall SS, Shaw JH. Effects of classroom noise on performance and activity of second-grade hyperactive and control children. J Educ Psychol 1980;72:830-40. |
| 23. | Dockrell JE, Shield BM. Acoustic barriers in classrooms: The impact of noise on performance in the classroom. Br Educ Res J 2006;32:509-25. |
| 24. | Hygge S. Classroom experiments on the effects of different noise sources and sound levels on long-term recall and recognition in children. Appl Cogn Psychol 2003;17:895-914. |
| 25. | Bell R, Buchner A, Mund I. Age-related differences in irrelevant-speech effects. Psychol Aging 2008;23:377-91. |
Correspondence Address:
Robert Ljung
Centre for Built Environment, University of Gävle, SE 801 76 Gävle
Sweden
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/1463-1741.56212
[Table 1], [Table 2] |
|
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Indoor soundscape, speech perception, and cognition in classrooms: A systematic review on the effects of ventilation-related sounds on students |
|
| Matteo Pellegatti, Simone Torresin, Chiara Visentin, Francesco Babich, Nicola Prodi | | Building and Environment. 2023; : 110194 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
A Scoping Review of the Effect of Classroom Acoustic Conditions on Primary School Children’s Numeracy Performance and Listening Comprehension |
|
| Kiri Mealings | | Acoustics Australia. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
Process-Sensitivity of the Changing-State Effect – Three Methodological Issues Regarding the Current Evidence Base |
|
| Philipp Radloff, Judith Schweppe | | Auditory Perception & Cognition. 2022; : 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
Individual Differences in Dealing With Classroom Noise Disturbances |
|
| Jessica Massonnié, Denis Mareschal, Natasha Z. Kirkham | | Mind, Brain, and Education. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 5 |
Loudness Perceptions Influence Feelings of Interpersonal Closeness and Protect Against Detrimental Psychological Effects of Social Exclusion |
|
| Deming Wang, Ignazio Ziano, Martin S. Hagger, Nikos L. D. Chatzisarantis | | Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2022; 48(4): 566 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 6 |
Acoustics in South African classrooms: Regulations versus reality |
|
| Coralie van Reenen, Chrisna du Plessis | | Building Acoustics. 2021; : 1351010X21 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 7 |
The effect of classroom acoustic conditions on literacy outcomes for children in primary school: A review |
|
| Kiri Mealings | | Building Acoustics. 2021; : 1351010X21 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 8 |
Effect of short-term and long-term traffic noise exposure on the thyroid gland in adult rats: a sexual dimorphic study |
|
| Shima Ababzadeh, Fatemeh-Sadat Razavinia, Mohsen Eslami Farsani, Sorush Sharifimoghadam, Azam Moslehi, Dorsa Faghani | | Hormone Molecular Biology and Clinical Investigation. 2021; 42(1): 29 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 9 |
Higher Sound Levels in K-12 Classrooms Correlate to Lower Math Achievement Scores |
|
| Laura C. Brill, Lily M. Wang | | Frontiers in Built Environment. 2021; 7 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 10 |
Loudness and Intelligibility of Irrelevant Background Speech Differentially Hinder Children's Short Story Reading |
|
| Giada Guerra, Jurgen Tijms, Anniek Vaessen, Adam Tierney, Frederic Dick, Milene Bonte | | Mind, Brain, and Education. 2021; 15(1): 77 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 11 |
Can green schools influence academic performance? |
|
| D. Vakalis, C. Lepine, H. L. MacLean, J. A. Siegel | | Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 2021; 51(13): 1354 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 12 |
The effects of classroom reverberation time and traffic noise on English listening comprehension of Chinese university students |
|
| Qiu Chen, Dayi Ou | | Applied Acoustics. 2021; 179: 108082 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 13 |
Out of the noise: Effects of sound environment on maths performance in middle-school students |
|
| Sara Caviola, Chiara Visentin, Erika Borella, Irene Mammarella, Nicola Prodi | | Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2021; 73: 101552 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 14 |
The effects of background music on neural responses during reading comprehension |
|
| Meng Du, Jun Jiang, Zhemin Li, Dongrui Man, Cunmei Jiang | | Scientific Reports. 2020; 10(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 15 |
Scientific Collaboration with Educators: Practical Insights from an in-Class Noise-Reduction Intervention |
|
| Jessica Massonnié, Philippe Frasseto, Denis Mareschal, Natasha Z. Kirkham | | Mind, Brain, and Education. 2020; 14(3): 303 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 16 |
A Pilot Study on the Relationship between Primary-School Teachers’ Well-Being and the Acoustics of their Classrooms |
|
| Suvi Karjalainen, Jonas K. Brännström, Jonas Christensson, Birgitta Sahlén, Viveka Lyberg-Åhlander | | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(6): 2083 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 17 |
The Effect of School Design on Users’ Responses: A Systematic Review (2008–2017) |
|
| Sara Manca, Veronica Cerina, Valentina Tobia, Simona Sacchi, Ferdinando Fornara | | Sustainability. 2020; 12(8): 3453 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 18 |
High second-language proficiency protects against the effects of reverberation on listening comprehension |
|
| Patrik Sörqvist,Anders Hurtig,Robert Ljung,Jerker Rönnberg | | Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 2014; 55(2): 91 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 19 |
Updating working memory in aircraft noise and speech noise causes different fMRI activations |
|
| Bjørn Saetrevik,Patrik Sörqvist | | Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 2014; : n/a | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 20 |
Environmental Psychology Matters |
|
| Robert Gifford | | Annual Review of Psychology. 2014; 65(1): 541 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 21 |
Individual differences in distractibility: An update and a model |
|
| Patrik Sörqvist,Jerker Rönnberg | | PsyCh Journal. 2014; 3(1): 42 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 22 |
Improving intelligibility at a safety critical point: In flight cabin safety |
|
| Brett R.C. Molesworth,Marion Burgess | | Safety Science. 2013; 51(1): 11 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 23 |
Improving intelligibility at a safety critical point: In flight cabin safety |
|
| Molesworth, B.R.C. and Burgess, M. | | Safety Science. 2013; 51(1): 11-16 | | [Pubmed] | | | 24 |
Noise and health in vulnerable groups: A review |
|
| Van Kamp, I. and Davies, H. | | Noise and Health. 2013; 15(64): 153-159 | | [Pubmed] | | | 25 |
Disruption of writing processes by the semanticity of background speech |
|
| Sörqvist, P. and Nöstl, A. and Halin, N. | | Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 2012; 53(2): 97-102 | | [Pubmed] | | | 26 |
Disruption of writing processes by the semanticity of background speech |
|
| PATRIK SÖRQVIST,ANATOLE NÖSTL,NIKLAS HALIN | | Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 2012; 53(2): 97 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 27 |
Non-auditory effect of community noise on interval timing in humans: an exploration |
|
| Babita Pande, Gajanan Rathod, Nishtha Vaidya, Chaynika Nag, Arti Parganiha, Atanu Kumar Pati | | Biological Rhythm Research. 2011; : 1 | | [VIEW] | [DOI] | | | 28 |
Nasal instillation of nanoparticle-rich diesel exhaust particles slightly affects emotional behavior and learning capability in rats |
|
| Yokota, S. and Takashima, H. and Ohta, R. and Saito, Y. and Miyahara, T. and Yoshida, Y. and Negura, T. and Senuma, M. and Usumi, K. and Hirabayashi, N. and Watanabe, T. and Horiuchi, S. and Fujitani, Y. and Hirano, S. and Fujimaki, H. | | Journal of Toxicological Sciences. 2011; 36(3): 267-276 | | [Pubmed] | | | 29 |
Noise and quality of life |
|
| Seidman, M.D., Standring, R.T. | | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2010; 7(10): 3730-3738 | | [Pubmed] | | | 30 |
Noise and Quality of Life |
|
| Michael D. Seidman,Robert T. Standring | | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2010; 7(10): 3730 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search Pubmed for
