Individual differences in objective effects of noise on performance were analyzed with respect to their distribution, temporal stability, and the precision of measurement to be attained. Seventy-two subjects had to memorize sequences of visually presented digits while being exposed to one of three auditory background conditions which were randomly mixed on a trial-by-trial basis: (1) foreign speech; (2) pink noise; and (3) silence. Individual “irrelevant speech effects,” operationalized by the difference in recall errors under speech and in silence, were normally distributed over a wide range extending from slight facilitation to severe disruption. When 25 subjects repeated the experiment after four weeks, the individual differences were replicated with a reliability of rtt=0.45. Internal consistency, a measure of the precision with which individual effects can be measured in a single session, was moderate (α=0.55). However, both retest, and consistency coefficients are severely attenuated by the use of (sound-minus-silence) difference scores, the reliability of which is bound to be considerably lower than that of the original error scores whenever these are correlated. Given that the original error rates in a specific auditory condition can be determined with reliabilities approaching 0.85, it may be concluded that individual performance decrements due to noise can be reliably measured in the “irrelevant speech” paradigm. Self-report measures of noise susceptibility collected to explore potential sources of the large inter-individual variation exhibited only weak relationships with the objectively measured noise effects: Subjects were quite inaccurate in assessing their individual impairment in the three auditory conditions, and a questionnaire-based measure of general noise sensitivity only accounted for a small portion of the variance in objectively measured performance decrements, although in both cases the predictive relationship was much stronger in female than in male subjects.

1.
Buchner, A., Irmen, L., and Erdfelder, E. (1996). “On the irrelevance of semantic information for the “irrelevant speech” effect,” Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 49A, 765–779.
2.
Colle, H. A., and Welsh, A. (1976). “Acoustic masking in primary memory,” J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 15, 17–32.
3.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests,” Psychometrika 16, 297–334.
4.
Cureton, E. E. (1971). “The stability coefficient,” Educat. Psycholog. Measurement 31, 45–55.
5.
Ellermeier, W., and Hellbrück, J. (in press). “Is level irrelevant in “irrelevant speech”? Effects of loudness, signal-to-noise ratio, and binaural unmasking,” J. Exp. Psychol.: Human Percept. Perform.
6.
Green
,
D. M.
, and
Fidell
,
S.
(
1991
). “
Variability in the criterion for reporting annoyance in community noise surveys
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
89
,
234
243
.
7.
Hellbrück
,
J.
,
Namba
,
S.
, and
Kuwano
,
S.
(
1996
). “
Irrelevant background speech and human performance: Is there long-term habituation?
J. Acoust. Soc. Jpn.
17
,
239
247
.
8.
Job
,
R. F. S.
(
1988
). “
Community response to noise: A review of factors influencing the relationship between noise exposure and reaction
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
83
,
991
1001
.
9.
Jones, D. M. (1993). “Objects, streams, and threads of auditory attention,” in Attention: Selection, Awareness, and Control. A Tribute to Donald Broadbent, edited by A. Baddeley and L. Weisskrantz (Clarendon, Oxford).
10.
Jones, D. M., and Davies, D. R. (1984). “Individual and group differences in the response to noise,” in Noise and Society, edited by D. M. Jones and A. J. Chapman (Wiley, New York), pp. 125–153.
11.
Jones, D. M., and Macken, W. J. (1993). “Irrelevant tones produce an irrelevant speech effect: Implications for phonological coding in short-term memory,” J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Memory Cogn. 19, 369–381.
12.
Jones, D. M., and Macken, W. J. (1995a). “Auditory babble and cognitive efficiency: The role of number of voices and their location,” J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 1, 216–226.
13.
Jones, D. M., and Macken, W. J. (1995b). “Organizational factors in the effect of irrelevant speech: The role of spatial location and timing,” Memory Cognit. 23, 192–200.
14.
Jones, D. M., Bridges, A., Alford, D., Macken, W. J., and Tremblay, S. (submitted). “Mechanisms of auditory attention: the role of distinctiveness in the irrelevant speech effect,” submitted to J. Exp. Psychol.: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
15.
Jones, D. M., and Morris, N. (1992). “Irrelevant speech and cognition,” in Handbook of Human Performance, edited by D. M. Jones and A. P. Smith (Academic, London), Vol. 1, pp. 29–53.
16.
Jones, D. M., Beaman, P., and Macken, W. J. (1996). “The object-oriented episodic record model,” in Models of Short-Term Memory, edited by S. E. Gathercole (Psychology Press, Hove, UK), pp. 209–237.
17.
Jones, D. M., Macken, W. J., and Mosdell (in press). “The role of habituation in the disruption of recall performance by irrelevant sound,” Br. J. Psychol.
18.
Kline, P. (1993). The Handbook of Psychological Testing (Routledge, London).
19.
LeCompte, D. C. (1994). “Extending the irrelevant speech effect beyond serial recall,” J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Memory, Cogn. 20, 1396–1408.
20.
Lienert, G. A., and Raatz, U. (1994). Testaufbau und Testanalyse [Test construction and test evaluation] 5th ed. (Beltz, Weinheim, Germany).
21.
Mabe, P. A., and West, S. W. (1982). “Validity of self-evaluation of ability: Review and meta-analysis,” J. Appl. Psychol. 67, 280–296.
22.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill, New York), 2nd ed.
23.
Salamé, P., and Baddeley, A. D. (1982). “Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: Implications for the structure of working memory,” J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 21, 150–164.
24.
Smith, A. P., and Jones, D. M. (1992). “Noise and performance,” in Handbook of Human Performance, edited by D. M. Jones and A. P. Smith (Academic, London), Vol. 1, pp. 1–28.
25.
Smith, A. P., Jones, D. M., and Broadbent, D. E. (1981). “The effects of noise on recall of categorized lists,” Br. J. Psychol. 72, 299–316.
26.
Staples, S. L. (1996). “Human response to environmental noise: Psychological research and public policy,” Am. Psycholog. 51, 143–150.
27.
Taylor
,
S. M.
(
1984
). “
A path model of aircraft noise annoyance
,”
J. Sound Vib.
96
,
243
260
.
28.
Thomas
,
J. R.
, and
Jones
,
D. M.
(
1982
). “
Individual differences in noise annoyance and the uncomfortable loudness level
,”
J. Sound Vib.
82
,
289
304
.
29.
Weinstein, N. D. (1978). “Individual differences in reactions to noise: A longitudinal study in a college dormitory,” J. Appl. Psychol. 63, 458–466.
30.
Wilkinson, R. T. (1974). “Individual differences in response to the environment,” Ergonomics 17, 745–756.
31.
Wolski, U. (1996). “Experimentelle Untersuchung der Wirkung frequenzmodulierten Hintergrundschalls auf die Leistung in einer Gedächtnisaufgabe” [“Effects of frequency-modulated tones on performance in a memory task.”] Master’s thesis, University of Regensburg, Germany.
32.
Zimmer, K., and Ellermeier, W. (submitted). “Konstruktion und Evaluation eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung der individuellen Lärmempfindlichkeit” [“Construction and evaluation of a noise sensitivity questionnaire.”], submitted to Diagnostica.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.