The effect of speech and speech intelligibility on task performance

The aim of this study was to find out what are the effects of three different sound environments on performance of cognitive tasks of varying complexity. These three sound environments were ‘speech’, ‘masked speech’ and ‘continuous noise’. They corresponded to poor, acceptable and perfect acoustical privacy in an open-plan office, respectively. The speech transmission indices were 0.00, 0.30 and 0.80, respectively. Sounds environments were presented at 48 dBA. The laboratory experiment on 36 subjects lasted for 4 h for each subject. Proofreading performance deteriorated in the ‘speech’ (p < 0.05) compared to the other two sound environments. Reading comprehension and computer-based tasks (simple and complex reaction time, subtraction, proposition, Stroop and vigilance) remained unaffected. Subjects assessed the ‘speech’ as the most disturbing, most disadvantageous and least pleasant environment (p < 0.01). ‘Continuous noise’ annoyed the least. Subjective arousal was highest in ‘masked speech’ and lowest in ‘continuous noise’ (p < 0.05). Performance in real open-plan offices could be improved by reducing speech intelligibility, e.g. by attenuating speech level and using an appropriate masking environment.

[1]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Disruption of proofreading by irrelevant speech: Effects of attention, arousal or memory? , 1990 .

[2]  W. Ellermeier,et al.  Is level irrelevant in "irrelevant speech"? Effects of loudness, signal-to-noise ratio, and binaural unmasking. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  S. Cohen,et al.  Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: a review of research and theory. , 1980, Psychological bulletin.

[4]  J. Wilding,et al.  Noise effects in free recall with different orienting tasks. , 1982, British journal of psychology.

[5]  Jukka Keränen,et al.  ACOUSTICS IN OPEN-PLAN OFFICES - A LABORATORY STUDY , 2004 .

[6]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Privileged Access by Irrelevant Speech to Short-term Memory: The Role of Changing State , 1992, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[7]  D. Berry,et al.  Disruption of office‐related tasks by speech and office noise , 1998 .

[8]  Alan B. Welsh,et al.  Acoustic masking in primary memory. , 1976 .

[9]  D H Holding,et al.  Noise, sex and time of day effects in a mathematics task. , 1984, Ergonomics.

[10]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  A 3 min reasoning test based on grammatical transformation , 1968 .

[11]  P Paul F M Kuijer,et al.  The effect of office concepts on worker health and performance: a systematic review of the literature , 2005, Ergonomics.

[12]  Eric Sundstrom,et al.  Office Noise, Satisfaction, and Performance , 1994 .

[13]  Steven J. Wilson,et al.  Experimental manipulation of reading strategies. , 1973 .

[14]  Robert H. Logie,et al.  Cognitive processes in counting. , 1987 .

[15]  Wolfgang Ellermeier,et al.  Task interference plays a role in assessing noise annoyance , 2004 .

[16]  J. Rotter.  Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. , 1966, Psychological monographs.

[17]  N D Weinstein.  Noise and intellectual performance: a confirmation and extension. , 1977, The Journal of applied psychology.

[18]  V Hongisto,et al.  A model predicting the effect of speech of varying intelligibility on work performance. , 2005, Indoor air.

[19]  H. Hörmann,et al.  Psychische und physische Reaktionen auf Geräusch verschiedener subjektiver Wertigkeit , 1970 .

[20]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech : Implications for the structure of working memory , 1982 .

[21]  E. Sundstrom,et al.  Privacy at Work: Architectural Correlates of Job Satisfaction and Job Performance , 1980 .

[22]  Peter Suedfeld,et al.  Cognitive and Arousal Effects of Masking Office Noise , 1992 .

[23]  Herbert A. Colle,et al.  Auditory encoding in visual short-term recall: effects of noise intensity and spatial location , 1980 .

[24]  Neil D. Weinstein,et al.  Effect of noise on intellectual performance. , 1974 .

[25]  N. Weinstein.  Individual differences in reactions to noise: a longitudinal study in a college dormitory. , 1978, The Journal of applied psychology.

[26]  Donald F. Dansereau,et al.  Effects of conversational noise, locus of control, and field dependence/independence on the performance of academic tasks , 1986 .

[27]  Jennifer A. Veitch,et al.  Office noise and illumination effects on reading comprehension , 1990 .

[28]  S Klitzman,et al.  The impact of the physical environment on the psychological well-being of office workers. , 1989, Social science & medicine.

[29]  C. Spielberger,et al.  Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory , 1970 .

[30]  Dianne C. Berry,et al.  Habituation and dishabituation to speech and office noise , 1997 .

[31]  H. Eysenck.  Biological Basis of Personality , 1963, Nature.

[32]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Reading comprehension in the presence of unattended speech and music , 1988 .

[33]  T. Marteau,et al.  The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). , 1992, The British journal of clinical psychology.

[34]  G. Evans,et al.  Stress and open-office noise. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[35]  D. C. Lecompte,et al.  The importance of semantic similarity to the irrelevant speech effect , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[36]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Auditory Distraction and Short-Term Memory: Phenomena and Practical Implications , 2001, Hum. Factors.

[37]  Etienne Grandjean,et al.  Results of an Ergonomic Investigation of Large-Space Offices , 1973 .