Affiliations: [a] Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden
| [b] Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| [c] School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
| [d] Department of Civil, Environmental, and Natural Resources Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden
| [e] Department of Building, Energy, and Environmental Engineering, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden
Correspondence:
[*]
Address for correspondence: Helena Jahncke, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, University of Gävle, SE-801 76, Gävle, Sweden. Tel.: +46 26 64 81 24; E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: 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.
Keywords: Background speech, masking sound, serial recall, work load
