uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Office noise: Can headphones and masking sound attenuate distraction by background speech?
Univ Gavle, Ctr Musculoskeletal Res, Dept Occupat & Publ Hlth Sci, Gavle, Sweden..
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
Univ Cent Lancashire, Sch Psychol, Preston, Lancs, England..
Lulea Univ Technol, Dept Civil Environm & Nat Resources Engn, Lulea, Sweden..
Show others and affiliations
2016 (English)In: Work: A journal of Prevention, Assesment and rehabilitation, ISSN 1051-9815, E-ISSN 1875-9270, Vol. 55, no 3, p. 505-513Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Background speech is one of the most disturbing noise sources at shared workplaces in terms of both annoyance and performance-related disruption. Therefore, it is important to identify techniques that can efficiently protect performance against distraction. It is also important that the techniques are perceived as satisfactory and are subjectively evaluated as effective in their capacity to reduce distraction.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to compare three methods of attenuating distraction from background speech: masking a background voice with nature sound through headphones, masking a background voice with other voices through headphones and merely wearing headphones (without masking) as a way to attenuate the background sound. Quiet was deployed as a baseline condition.

METHODS: Thirty students participated in an experiment employing a repeated measures design.

RESULTS: Performance (serial short-term memory) was impaired by background speech (1 voice), but this impairment was attenuated when the speech was masked-and in particular when it was masked by nature sound. Furthermore, perceived workload was lowest in the quiet condition and significantly higher in all other sound conditions. Notably, the headphones tested as a sound-attenuating device (i. e. without masking) did not protect against the effects of background speech on performance and subjective work load.

CONCLUSIONS: Nature sound was the only masking condition that worked as a protector of performance, at least in the context of the serial recall task. However, despite the attenuation of distraction by nature sound, perceived workload was still high-suggesting that it is difficult to find a masker that is both effective and perceived as satisfactory.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 55, no 3, p. 505-513
Keyword [en]
Background speech, masking sound, serial recall, work load
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-311253DOI: 10.3233/WOR-162421ISI: 000388227000003OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-311253DiVA: diva2:1059135
Available from: 2016-12-22 Created: 2016-12-22 Last updated: 2017-11-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text
By organisation
Department of Psychology
In the same journal
Work: A journal of Prevention, Assesment and rehabilitation
Social Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 330 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf