This paper examines the use of water features for masking irrelevant speech and improving the soundscape of open-plan offices. Two laboratory experiments were carried out, as well as acoustic simulations and field tests. Experiment 1 aimed to identify the preferred sound level of water sounds against irrelevant speech. Experiment 2 examined the audio-only and audio-visual preferences and perception of waterscapes. Acoustic simulations and field tests examined the impact of design factors. The results showed that, when played against a constant level of irrelevant speech of 48 dBA, people prefer to listen to water sounds of 42–48 dBA (45 dBA being best). These results and results from previous research suggest that water sounds work mainly as informational maskers rather than energetic maskers. Furthermore, the introduction of a water feature improved the perception of the sound environment, and adding visual stimuli improved perception by up to 2.5 times. Acoustic simulations indicated that features at each corner and one at the center (or a single feature with an array of speakers) can provide appropriate masking for a large open-plan office, whilst field tests showed that water sounds decrease the distraction and privacy distances significantly (clusters of workstations benefitting more than rows of workstations).
References
1.
E. M.
De Croon
, J. K.
Sluiter
, P. P. F. M.
Kuijer
, and M. H. W.
Frings-Dresen
, “The effect of office concepts on worker health and performance: A systematic review of the literature
,” Ergonomics
48
, 119
–134
(2005
).2.
J.
Pejtersen
, L.
Allermann
, T. S.
Kristensen
, and O. M.
Poulsen
, “Indoor climate, psychosocial work environment and symptoms in open-plan offices
,” Indoor Air
16
, 392
–401
(2006
).3.
A.
Haapakangas
, M.
Haka
, E.
Keskinen
, and V.
Hongisto
, “Effect of speech intelligibility on task performance—An experimental laboratory study
,” in Proceedings of the 9th Congress of the International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise ICBEN
, Foxwoods, CT (July 21–25, 2008
).4.
C.
Bodin Danielsson
and L.
Bodin
, “Difference in satisfaction with office environment among employees in different office types
,” J. Archit. Plan. Res.
26
, 241
–257
(2009
).5.
K. L.
Jensen
, E.
Arens
, and L.
Zagreus
, “Acoustical quality in office workstations, as assessed by occupant surveys
,” in Proceedings of Indoor Air: 10th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate
, Beijing, China (September 4–9, 2005
), pp. 2401
–2405
.6.
E.
Sundstrom
, J. P.
Town
, R. W.
Rice
, D. P.
Osborn
, and M.
Brill
, “Office noise, satisfaction, and performance
,” Environ. Behav.
26
, 195
–222
(1994
).7.
V.
Hongisto
, “A model predicting the effect of speech of varying intelligibility on work performance
,” Indoor Air
15
, 458
–468
(2005
).8.
N.
Venetjoki
, A.
Kaarlela-Tuomaala
, E.
Keskinen
, and V.
Hongisto
, “The effect of speech and speech intelligibility on task performance
,” Ergonomics
49
, 1068
–1091
(2006
).9.
P.
Virjonen
, J.
Keränen
, R.
Helenius
, J.
Hakala
, and V.
Hongisto
, “Speech privacy between neighboring workstations in an open office—A laboratory study
,” Acta Acust. united Ac.
93
, 771
–782
(2007
).10.
V.
Hongisto
, “Effect of sound masking on workers in an open office
,” in Proceedings of Acoustics 08
, Paris, France (June 30–July 4, 2008
), pp. 537
–542
.11.
A.
Haapakangas
, E.
Kankkunen
, V.
Hongisto
, P.
Virjonen
, D.
Oliva
, and E
Keskinen
, “Effects of five speech masking sounds on performance and acoustic satisfaction. implications for open-plan offices
,” Acta Acust. united Ac.
97
, 641
–655
(2011
).12.
A.
Haapakangas
, V.
Hongisto
, J.
Hyönä
, J.
Kokko
, and J.
Keränen
, “Effects of unattended speech on performance and subjective distraction: The role of acoustic design in open-plan offices
,” Appl. Acoust.
86
, 1
–16
(2014
).13.
J. S.
Bradley
, “The acoustical design of conventional open plan offices
,” Can. Acoust.
31
, 23
–31
(2003
).14.
P.
Virjonen
, J.
Keränen
, and V.
Hongisto
, “Determination of acoustical conditions in open-plan offices: Proposal for new measurement method and target values
,” Acta Acust. united Ac.
95
, 279
–290
(2009
).15.
British Council for Offices
, Guide to Specification 2019, Section 11: Acoustics
(British Council for Offices
, London
, 2019
).16.
BS 8233
: Guidance on Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings
(British Standards Institute
, London
, 2014
).17.
W.
Ellermeier
and J.
Hellbruck
, “Is level irrelevant in ‘irrelevant speech’? Effects of loudness, signal-to-noise ratio, and binaural unmasking
,” J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.
24
, 1406
–1414
(1998
).18.
S.
Schlittmeier
and J.
Hellbrück
, “Background music as noise abatement in open-plan offices: A laboratory study on performance effects and subjective preferences
,” Appl. Cogn. Psychol.
23
, 684
–697
(2009
).19.
L.
Loewen
and P.
Suedfeld
, “Cognitive and arousal effects of masking office noise
,” Environ. Behav.
24
, 381
–395
(1992
).20.
M.
Haka
, A.
Haapakangas
, J.
Keränen
, J.
Hakala
, E.
Keskinen
, and V.
Hongisto
, “Performance effects and subjective disturbance of speech in acoustically different office types—A laboratory experiment
,” Indoor Air
19
, 454
–467
(2009
).21.
H.
Jahncke
, S.
Hygge
, N.
Halin
, A. M.
Green
, and K.
Dimberg
, “Open-plan office noise: Cognitive performance and restoration
,” J. Environ. Psychol.
31
, 373
–382
(2011
).22.
23.
L.
Galbrun
and T. T.
Ali
, “Acoustical and perceptual assessment of water sounds and their use over road traffic noise
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
133
, 227
–237
(2013
).24.
M.
Keus van de Poll
, J.
Carlsson
, J. E.
Marsh
, R.
Ljung
, J.
Odelius
, S. J.
Schlittmeier
, G.
Sundin
, and P.
Sörqvist
, “Unmasking the effects of masking on performance: The potential of multiple-voice masking in the office environment
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
138
, 807
–816
(2015
).25.
H.
Jahncke
, P.
Björkeholm
, J. E.
Marsh
, J.
Odelius
, and P.
Sörqvist
, “Office noise: Can headphones and masking sound attenuate distraction by background speech?
,” Work
55
, 505
–513
(2016
).26.
Z.
Abdalrahman
, “The use of water features for imrpoving speech privacy and cognitive performance in open-plan office
,” Ph.D. thesis, Heriot-Watt University
, Edinburgh, UK
, 2018
.27.
V.
Hongisto
, J.
Varjo
, D.
Oliva
, A.
Haapakangas
, and E.
Benway
, “Perception of water-based masking sounds-long-term experiment in an open-plan office
,” Front. Psychol.
8
, 1177
(2017
).28.
J.
Veitch
, J. S.
Bradley
, L. M.
Legault
, S.
Norcross
, and J. M.
Svec
, “Masking speech in open-plan offices with simulated ventilation noise: Noise level and spectral composition effects on acoustic satisfaction
,” National Research Council Canada Internal Report No. IRC-IR-846
, Ottawa, Canada (2002
).29.
ANSI S3.5
: Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index
(American National Standards Institute
, New York
, 1997
).30.
J.
Carles
, F.
Bernáldez
, and J. D.
Lucio
, “Audio-visual interactions and soundscape preferences
,” Landsc. Res.
17
, 52
–56
(1992
).31.
W.
Yang
and J.
Kang
, “Soundscape and sound preferences in urban squares: A case study in Sheffield
,” J. Urban Des.
10
, 61
–80
(2005
).32.
G. R.
Watts
, R. J.
Pheasant
, K. V.
Horoshenkov
, and L.
Ragonesi
, “Measurement and subjective assessment of water generated sounds
,” Acta Acust. united Ac.
95
, 1032
–1039
(2009
).33.
L.
Galbrun
and F. M. A.
Calarco
, “Audio-visual interaction and perceptual assessment of water features used over road traffic noise
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
136
, 2609
–2620
(2014
).34.
J. Y.
Jeon
, P. J.
Lee
, J.
You
, and J.
Kang
, “Perceptual assessment of quality of urban soundscapes with combined noise sources and water sounds
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
127
(3
), 1357
–1366
(2010
).35.
V.
Hongisto
, J.
Keränen
, and P.
Larm
, “Simple model for the acoustical design of open-plan offices
,” Acta Acust. united Ac.
90
, 481
–495
(2004
).36.
H.
Jahncke
, V.
Hongisto
, and P.
Virjonen
, “Cognitive performance during irrelevant speech: Effects of speech intelligibility and office-task characteristics
,” Appl. Acoust.
74
, 307
–316
(2013
).37.
H. J. M.
Steeneken
and T.
Houtgast
, “A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
67
, 318
–326
(1980
).38.
ISO 9921
, “Ergonomics–Assessment of speech communication
” (ISO
, Geneva, Switzerland
, 2003
).39.
K.
Space
, “Arqiva_30-Open plan office layout at Arqiva
,” Flickr, https://goo.gl/esDZcn (Last viewed March 15, 2016
).40.
ISO 3382-3
, “Measurement of room acoustic parameters, Part 3: Open plan office
” (ISO
, Geneva, Switzerland
, 2012
).41.
T.
Houtgast
and H. J. M.
Steeneken
, “The modulation transfer function in room acoustics as a predictor of speech intelligibility
,” Acustica
28
, 66
–73
(1973
).42.
L.
Galbrun
and K.
Kitapci
, “Accuracy of speech transmission index predictions based on the reverberation time and signal-to-noise ratio
,” Appl. Acoust.
81
, 1
–14
(2014
).43.
ISO 3382-1
, “Measurement of room acoustic parameters–Part 1: Performance spaces
” (ISO
, Geneva, Switzerland
, 2009
).44.
Y.
Benjamini
and Y.
Hochberg
, “Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing
,” J. R. Stat. Soc. B
57
, 289
–300
(1995
).45.
A.
Field
, Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics
(SAGE Publications Ltd
, Thousand Oaks, CA
, 2013
).46.
J.
Cohen
, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
(Academic Press
, New York
, 1988
).47.
Z.
Abdalrahman
and L.
Galbrun
, “Soundscape assessment of a water feature used in an open-plan office
,” in Proceedings of PLEA 2017—Design to Thrive, Volume III
, Edinburgh, UK (July 3–5, 2017
), pp. 1245
–1252
.48.
A.
Haapakangas
and V.
Hongisto
, “Distraction distance and perceived disturbance by noise—An analysis of 21 open-plan offices
,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
141
(1
), 127
–136
(2017
).49.
See supplemental material at http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/10.0000892 for the audio-visual animations of the six water features.
© 2020 Acoustical Society of America.
2020
Acoustical Society of America
You do not currently have access to this content.
