..

EDU
BF205
N7K7
1950
\ .

. ..

' '

'.

,,
 TABLEOF CONTENTS

FOREWORD 4

PREFACE 5

INTRODUCTION 6

Part l EFFECTSOF NOISE ON BEHAVIOR 7

Part 11 DEAFENING EFFECTSOF NOISE 27

Part lll EFFECTSOF NOISE ON COMMUNICATION BY

SPEECH 57

Appendix BIBLIOGRAPHY ON MEASUREMENT ANO

REDUCTION OF NOISE 91

l
1
'
THE AMERICAN SPEECH AND HEARING ASSOCIATION
OFFICERS
Prcsident \Vend ell Johnson, Ph.D ., State University of Iowa
President-Elect M. D. Steer, Ph.D., Purdue Universitv
Vice-President Henry M. i\foser, Ph.D. , Ohio State University
Vice-President-Elect Harlan Bloomer, Ph.D., Urversity of Michigan
Secretary-Treasurer George A. Kopp , Ph.D., \Vayne University

COUNCIL
The Officcrs and the following Councilors:
Ollic Baclrns, Ph.D. Martin F. Palm cr, Sc.D.
Raymond Carhart, Ph.D. Gordon Peterson, Ph.D .
Grant Fairbanks, Ph .D. S. Richard Silverman, Ph.D .
\fargarct E. Hall, Ph.D . Charle s R. Strothcr, Ph.D.
Eugene T. McDonald, D.Ed . Harold Westlake, Ph.D.
D. W. Morris, Ph.D.
APPLICATI01'S FOR x1E:\1UERSH1P SHOt:LD UE ADDRESSF.D TO THE SEC;RETARY-TRE.-1.St:RER

THE JOURNAL OF SPEECH AND HEARING DISORDERS

EDITOR
Grant Fairbanks, Ph.D.
ASSISTANT TO THE EDITOR
Elaine Pagel Paden, Ph.D .
ASSOCIATE EDITORS
Stanley H. Ainsworth, Ph.D. Claude E. Kantner, Ph.D .
Clin ical and Scho ol Proble111s Voic e m1d Arti cztlatio11 Disord ers
Spencer F. Brown, M.D. Pbo11etics
Psycholo gical Problems S. Richard Silverman, Ph.D .
Medica/ Problems Heari11g Disord ers
E. Robert Harrington, Ph.D. Psy cbo acousti cs
Organic Sp eech Disorders

ASSISTANT EDITORS
Ernest H . Henrikson, Ph.D. Martn F. Palmer, Sc.D.
Book Re views R ec ords
Eugene T. McD ona ld, D.Ed. Miriam D. Pauls, Ph.D.
Abstracts News and Ann ozmc ements
BUSINESSMANAGER
George A. Kopp, Ph.D.

l-fANUS CRIP'l'Sand rclated corre.spondence sbould be arldrcs~ecl to: Grant Fairbanks, Editor, J oHrnal of
Sp ecc/i an,l H cari ng Disord ers, 321 Illini Hall , Univc rs ity of Illinoi .s, Urbana, Illinois.
SunSCRIPTlON S and orclers far bac.k numbe.rs should be adcircssed to: Geor ge A . Kopp, Business iranag~r,
!ou rna l of Spe ec/1 an d Hcari,ig Dis o rders, Spcech Clini c , \V ay nc Univcrsity, D etroi t, 1Ii chga n.
N 1:w s and announccmcnts s houlrl be addrcsscd to: 1\firiam D. Pauls, The Hearing and Spe:ech Ccntcr ,
The J ohns Hopkin s Ho spita l, Baltimore 5, :!.lar yland.
NOTIC( TO A UT H ORS
Bef are sub mitting manus c ripts for pub lication aut hors should consu lt Informatiolt for Contrbutors
to th c Journal of Spcc:ch and He ar in g D isorde rs, JSI!D, 1949, 14, 93.94 . Prospe c tive a uthor s ar e invitcd
to writ e th e Editor for copie s of this Note, and of its sup pl e men t, Exa mples of l\fanu script Form .
 The ]ournal of
Monograph Supplement 1, 1950 Speec/J and Hearing

Disorders

THE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON MAN

Karl D. Kryt er

Human Resources

Research Labora+ories

Bolling Air Force Base

Washington, D. C.

T his r epon was prep ared under Contract No. N6onr-272 between Central Institute
for the Dc af, St . Louis, Mo ., and the Offic e of Nav al Res ear ch.
 EI>fA
81='")..0S"
FOREWORD
Nl K1
C{"SO
THE PUBL!CATIOX of this lvlonograph Supplemeut to the Journal of
Speech aud Heariug Dsorders is a new venture. Severa! years ago it
bccame apparent that long arrides could not always be accommodated
satisfactorily within the ]oumal proper. A rnajor purpose of the pres-
ent monograph, for example, would not have been accomplished had
it been divided and issued piecemeal over severa! years. To rncet this
situation the Executive Council of the American Speech and Hearing
Association authorized the Editor and Business JV1anager to proceed
with a series of Monograph Supplemeuts as suitable manuscripts or
groups of rnanuscripts were submitted, and as the Journal's financia!
status made their publication possible.
T be Eff ects of N os e 011 Man is a review, summary, synthesis,
evaluation, and interpretation of the experimental literature on noise
as an aspect of man's environment. lts first section is concerned with
effects upon behavior, particularly in regard to work output and effi-
ciency. The second part brings together material on auditory damage
as the result of noise, and defenses against such damage. The third
portion considers nois as a disruptive factor in speech comrnunication.
A bih!iography on methods of noise measurement and procedures for
reduction is added as an appendix. The breadth of the project is indi-
cated by the fact that more than 650 different titles are included in the
chapter bibliographies and appendix.
On the subject of noise and men the author, Dr. Karl D. Kryter,
is an authority at the experimental leve!. An experimental psy-
chologist who has specialized in psycho-acoustics and psycho-
physiology, he has published approximately 20 reports of experimental
investigations relating to the effects of noise upon speech communica-
tion and audition, and has also done considerable electro-physiological
research on functions of the higher acoustic nerve centers in animals.
Following graduare study which led to the Ph .D. degree in psychology
at the University of Rochester, he was a Fellow of Harvard Univer-
sity, where he was associated with Psycho-Acoustic Laboratory during
and immediately after \Vorld \Var II. Frorn 1946 to 1948 he was
Assistant Profes.sor of Psychology at Washington University :md Re-
search Associate at the Central Institute for the Deaf. Since 1948 he
has been Director of the Human Resources Research Laboratories,
Headquartcrs Command, United States Air Force, where he has con-
tinued work upon psychological problems of human communication.
The ]oumal of Speech mzd Hearng Dsorders presents this author
and his work with pride. Appreciation of noise as an interferer and a
producer of disorders in speech communication is widening. The in-
terest in acoustic hygiene, especially in industrial and military circles,
mounts steadily. lt is appropriate to take a careful look at the funda-
mental experimental evidence.
Grant Fairbanks July 1, 1950
 PREFACE

1~ 1948 THE At:THOR undcrtook the task of preparing for the Bureau of
Ships, under a contraer between the Office of Naval Research and the
Central lnstitute for the Deaf, a report that would summarize in as
succinct a form as possible the literature on the effects of noise on man.
The final report was envisaged as a sort of brief 'handbook' that might
be of assistance to engineers in the design and instrumentation of
communication systems and work spaces subjected to intense levels of
noise. Inasmuch as the 'human operator' is not, at least so it seems to
the psychologist, adequately considered and oftcn little understood
by the engineer, thc job of preparing such a report was eagerly under-
taken. In addition, during the ,var years, particularly in the field of
psycho-acoustics, much research had been accomplished which could
be discussed and applied with henefit to the art of engineering.
The final aim of the report, however, became more general than a
. summarization of experiments conducted in the military and industrial
situations. An attempt was made to dig as deeply as necessary into
hasic psychological and physiological experiments to support and
elucidare the results of the 'applied' and technical research. lt perhaps
should be pointed out that ali of the literature included in the report
for discussion appears either in professional journals or in unclassified
and declassified government publications. Also, the scope of the report
was not confined in any way to consideration of military problems.
The report is divided into three major parts: ( 1) Effects of Noise
on Behavior, (2) Deafening Effects of Noise, and (3) Effects of Noise
on Communication by Speech. Each part of the report is followed by
its own biblography and, in addition , there is attached a bibliography
concerned with 'Measurement and Reduction of Noise.' This attach-
ment represents titles accrued during the search through related lit-
erature and is included for what it may he worth to the interested
student .
The bibliographies of the report represent a joint effort of Mr.
Morris C. Leikind and Mrs. i\fabel H. Eller of the Navy Research
Section of the Library of Congress and the author. Verification of
titles and editing was done by Mrs. Eller and Mrs. Virginia Boteler
of the Library's staff. Grateful acknowledgment is given to staff of
the Navy Research Section of the Library of Congress; through their
efforts the references are much more extensive and accurate than
would have bcen otherwise possiblc.
Appreciation is also due to the many authors and journals for per-
mission to reproduce the figures in the report. Finally, the author
wishes to express his gratitude and indebtedness for the guidance and
patience of Dr. Hallowell Davis of the Central Institute for the Dcaf,
under whose supervision this report was prcpared. His knowledge of
the entire subject matter, suggestions and editorship were invaluable
in bringing the report into its final form.
INTRODUCTION

SINCE THE ADVENT of power driven machinery, man has been beset
with the obnoxious etfects of noise or 'unwanted sound.' Although it
had long been recognized that noise rnay be present in injurious
arnounts in sorne industries , the possibility that the noise on battle-
fields and aboard planes :md warships rnight interfere with military
efficiency directed a new intercst to the question of noise control
during vVorld vVar II. The magnitude of the problem can be illus-
trated by the following exarnple : Tests revea! that with the cornmuni-
cation equipment used during thc first years of the war, less than 30%
of special test words could be correctly heard over the interphones
aboard bomber planes and in engine rooms of warships because of the
intense, continuous, ambient noise. Besides interfering with the under-
standing of speech, noise and gun blast contributed to the partial or
complete destruction of the hcaring of severa! thousands of military
personnel.
In general , che effeccs of noise on man 's health, other than hear-
ing, and behavior have been exaggerated and what effects thcrc are
have often been misconscrued. For one thing, a line muse be drawn
between the effects of sharp, sudden noises or sounds and steady-
state ( continuous) or regularly intermittent noises. The former possess
a characteristic of unexpectedness causing a fright reaction which is,
of course, not unique to noise stimuli, but applies equally to sudden
visual and tactile stimulation. Therc has been a tendency to overlook
che rather innocuous etfects of noise that have become a 'regular' part
of one's environment, and to emphasize the drastic effects of che blast
of an auto horn or an unexpected bang of a door. Although mention
will be made later of che etfects of sudden, unexpected sounds, the
discussion will be ccntcred on steady-state and regularly repetitious
noises in that (a) they are che rule in the industrial and military
environment, and (b) experimentation, particularl y on work output ,
has been concerned wich chis typc of noise.
Before entering thc discussion, rnention should first be made of
che fact that it is difficult to define noise in terms of any of the physi-
cal parametcrs of sound waves, such as complexity of wave form or
intensity. For examplc, both music and pure tones under certain con-
ditions are commonly considercd as noise; the most acceptable defini-
tion of noise is apparent!y that of 'unwanted sound.'
/

Part l EFFECTSOF NOISE ON BEHAVIOR

THE EFFECTsof noise on the mental to noise, (5) public health and noise,
:md motor activity of man have been and ( 6) effects of extreme intensities.
the subject of many articles and a
considerable number of research proj- hmGSTRIAL F1 ELD STuo1Es

ects. Industrial management has been Kornhauser ( 40) attempted to de-

extremely interested in the general termine whether typists working in a
problem since it has seemed possible relatively quiet office do more work
that both office and factory noise and feel less fatigned than those work-
might havc a detrimental effect upon ing in a noisy office . (lt will be noted
production and personnel efficiency; in this and many of the experiments
the military were concerned with the to follow that 'noise' is described only
possible effects of noise upon person- qualitatively, making comparison of
nel while flying an airplane for long results among experiments difficult.)
periods, and upon speed and accuracy Record was kept of (a) two typists
in aiming guns and fire-control direc- who spent the first two days working
tors; public health authorities were in a quiet office and then two days
fearful of the consequences of the in the 'noisy' office and (b) two other
noises of daily living upon the health typi~ts who worked in the reverse ar-
of the populace. der of noise and quiet. The results
The present discussion will be con- showed that wasted linea ge was 2 3 %
fined to a survev of the effects of greater in the quiet room than in the
noise on work and other behavior that noisv room, and also that 1.5 % more
does not require auditory communica- lincs were written under the noisv
tion for its completion. Such activity conditions. Rating scales revealed th;t
might be termed 'non-auditory be- the girls felt they were working hard-
havior.' er in the quiet than in the 'noise.' The
Viewed from a scientific aspect, a differences between the two condi-
great number of publications in this tions cannot be accepted as necessarily
field represent poorly designed experi- significant, because of the small num-
ments or unsupported opinions. There ber of subjects. But the most impor-
have been, of course, some outstand- tant criticism against this study, and
ingly good studies. lVlany results that the one that can be leveled at nearlv
may seem insignificant are included ali the 'experiments' conducted on
in the following discussion for pur- this problem under actual working
poses of criticism and for the sake of conditions, is that there could have
completeness. This seems advisable be- been many differences between the
cause certain unreliable observations two work offices other than noise
are quoted in the literature again and leve), such as lighting, ventilation, etc.,
again without adequate comment re- that might account for the results.
garding the experimental procedures There are sorne report~ that pur-
emplo yed in their attainment. port to show a deleterious effect from
The papers will be divided, for noise. lt is claimed, for example (3,
ease of presentation, into ( 1) indus- 45, 47, 52), that 'moving the assembly
trial field studies, (2) laboratory ex- department of a regulator company
periments concerned with work out- from adjoining a noisy boiler shop to
put and accuracy, ( 3) feelings of an- a quiet room resulted in lowering re-
noyance, ( 4) physiological reactions jections at inspection from 75 % to a
8
 NO ISE AND
I low figure of 7 %.' The conclusion
drawn was that the reduction in noise
leve! caused the increased efficiency.
Changes in lighting, temperature, fa-
cilities, etc., were again ignored as
possible contributing factors. In spite
of the numerous articles published on
these results there are no references to
the original study other than the state-
ment that it was done by a 'Dr. Sach-
senberg' in Germany ( 45).
Mnjor Field Studies. It is apparent
that 'on the job' studies of work out-
put, fatigue and the like are rnade
exceedingly difficult and suspect by
many uncontrolled conditions. Before
turnincrb to experiments conducted . in
the laboratory, however, rnent1on
should be made of two studies, one
Ilritish, the other American, that rep-
resent probably the best, most care-
fully prosecuted 'on the job' re-
searches on this problern.
1. W eston and Adams studied in
Rritain the effect of noise on the work
performance of weavers (99, 100).
The looms in weaving shcds create
a considerable din which registers
96 db (probably re .0002 dyne / cm 2 )
on a sound leve! meter. Weston and
Adams did three expcriments: ( 1)
they had 1O weavers wear car plugs,
which reduced the intensity of the
noise at the eardrum by 10 to 15 dh1,
on alternare weeks and recorded their
o u t pu t over a 26-week period,
(2) they equated two groups of weav-
ers, 10 in each group, with regard to
pase efficiency; then one group wore
car plugs while working for a six-
month period while the second group
served as a control, working without
ear plugs, and ( 3) th ey repeated the
'Thc decibel (db) is a common unit
that can be uscd for exprcssing the ratio
of two amount s of sound pressure. Num-
Pressurc 1
bcr of decibels ==20 log 1 0 P
ressure 2
BEHAVIOR 9
eo,-------------------,
75
70
65
601..--..-----------+----'
5PRINQ AIJTUMN
FlGVRE l. Comparison of weckl y outputs of
weavers during one year. Experimental
group, noisc subdued by earplugs , unbroen
line ; control group, normal shed nrnsc,
broken line .Fro m \Ve ston and Adams (100) ,
with pcrmi ssion of the Comroller of Hi s
Britannic Majcsty's Stationcry Office.
second experiment, using sorne dif-
ferent subjects, but extended this ex-
periment over a period of one year.
The results of all threc exper iments
were roughly che same-about a 12 %
average incrcase in efficiency for those
who wore ear plu gs with respect to
those who did not. The gain amounted
to a 1 % increase in the amount of
material produced. The results of che
first experiment were considered sus-
pece by Weston and Adams, however,
because of a difference in hurnidity
hetween che weeks work ed with ear
plugs and che weeks when ear plugs
were not worn .
Figure l shows che results of che
third experiment. le is to be noted
that towards che end of the year the
experimental and the control groups
we re coming closer together with re-
gard to work output . This suggests
that an initi al difference in motivation
between th e two gro ups might have
helped make che experimental group
superior and che control gro up in-
ferior. But as the experimcnt wore
on, it might be surmiscd , the added
motivation or interese from being a
10 J O URNAL OF SPEECH AND
subject bcgan to wane, bringing the
control and experimental groups clos-
er together with regard to the work
output. lndeed, the subjective reports
of sorne of the subjects indicare an
approval of expcrirnents and attempts
to help the worker. lt is well lmown
that such attitudes alone can result
in significant changes in work output,
in the presence of noise ( 6). Another
critica! point has been made by Iler-
rien ( 11) who noted that the equality
of the control and the experimental
groups in the first and second cx-
pcriments was never dernonstratcd.
1t is possible that in spte of thesc
shortcomings in experimental proce-
dures the resnlts are correct, but they
must be accepted with reservations.
2. The majar A111erican field study
was conducted by the Aetna Life ln-
surnnce Cornpany in its own offices.
Apparently it has ncver been pub-
lished in its entirety, although sample
results have appeared severa! places
(47, S2, 101). Semi-monthlv bonus
figure records for typists,' clerical
checkers , punchcard and comprometer
operators were compared for a ycar
prior to, and a year after sound ab-
sorhing material wns installed in ali
offices. As a result of thc 'quieting,'
calculating machine operntors ' errors
were rednced 52 %, typists' errors
29%, health improved 37.5 %, and
employee turnover was reduced 47 % .
A trulv rem:ukahle achievement for
absorbnt wall board! The sound levcl
was reported as about 41 db" prior to
the sonnd treatment and 35 db after.
'In the Aetna and rnanv other sruclies
hercin prescnted, thc refere;1cc for db cx-
pressions of noise !CYcls is not gi\'cn. In
most cases ir appears likely that the refcr-
ence levd is probably .0002 clyne/cm", al-
though in the Actna study this woulcl rnake
the noisc levcls unusually low for an officc.
Tn thi s monograph the reference kvel is munication was studied or held con-
givcn whcnc ver it wa s reponed .
HEARING DISORDERS
In view of other studies, these
claims are fantastic when nccredited,
as thcy are, to 'adjustment of the noise
factor alone.' Because of a pauciry of
relevant facts. it is difficult to critcize
the studv, but one obvious factor un-
doubtedy contributing to the differ-
ence s betwecn thc variables recorded
was the lapse of time. Two years
elapsed in which the worker s may
have i m pro v e d their efficiency
through learning; the ill and non-
adept may have changed jobs, etc.
One control check was rnade a year
latcr which should, by itself, provide
ample data for negating the conclu-
sion concerning the effects of noise.
For this check thc sound -absorbing
walls were covered with o. o-vpsu111
board, thereby raising the sound leve!
by 6 db . The bonus efficiency dropped
to some extent (notas low as the first
year), but within two months was
as high as the leve! of the 'quiet'
vear!
General Co11c/usious from Field
Studi es. The evidence, then, from in-
dustrial survevs and tests does not
convincinglv show that thc noise en-
counterel i"n thcse industries and of-
fices has any detrimental or beneficia!
~ffect upori non-auditory tasks pe1-
tormcd by man. In none of the studies
is eviderice presented that workers
complained of t h e noise although
there were expressions of approval
when 'quiet' was accomplished.
Anv tasks involving communica-
tion , talking and listcning , however,
,, ill be interfered with bv noise. In
this case, noise could be expected to
arouse resentment and feelings of an-
nov,rnce, as wcll as cause inefficiencv.
As for as the present author knO\,;s,
no study involving psycho-motor
'work' in which the variable of com-
stant has been reported. Speech com-
 NOISE AND BEHAVIOR 11

I munication did not appear to play a ( 1) The cffcct of distraction u pon

significant role in any of the jobs in- the sensory reaction is equivocal. Thc

/
volved in the papcrs discussed thus distractor may inhibit and lcngthen
far, although sorne of the work in the reaction; it may facilitare and
the Aetna study may have required shorten the reaction; or it may becomc
some communication. habitual and have no effect ar ali.
(2) The effect of the distraction
L\BORATORY ExPERIMENTS CoNCF.R'>F.D is depcndent (a) upon the temporal
w1TH WoRK UTPUT AND AccuRACY
relations of the distractor, and (b)
Scientists, in attempts to determine upon the conscious attitude of the
the role of noise in non-auditory bc- observcr during the distraction.
havior, have found it necessary to (3) The distractor most rcsistant
study its effects in the laboratory in to habituation is the intermittent; the
order to avoid the rnass of other con- lcast resistant is the continuous.
tributing conditions present in the fac- Ef}'ects of [)istractiou by N oise on
tory or office. lt is readily accepted Learni11g. Morgan (64, 65) published
that 'real life' conditions are not met in 1916 and 1917 the results of experi-
in the laboratory, but if the effects of ments on the effects of distraction by
noise are not dmonstrable in the lab- sound on learning. He had subjects
oratory it is safe to say that startling lcarn paired associates consisting of
cffects attributed to noise in industry three-letter words and digits in quiet
are the result of a combination of and also when a buzzer and a fire gong
other factors. were intermittently sounded. The
The results of the laboratory studics noisc interfered slightly with learning,
are more readily interpreted than more at the beginning of the experi-
'field' investigations, but unfortunately ment than near the end. He also found
even here there are sorne experiments that in the noise the subjects exerted
that are equivocal. more muscular etfort in manipulating
Effects of Distraction by N oise 011 the experimental a p par a tus and
Reaction Time. Most of the early brcathed harder than the y did in thc
studies on the effects of noise deat quier. Margan concludes that ( I)
with effects on reaction time (17, 28, there is sorne adaptation to the noise
89). Fairly representative of thesc and ( 2) increased tension and eff ort
early studies is one by Cassel and Dall- can compensare for the effects of the
enbach (/6), who studied the effect distracting noise so that work output
of auditory distraction upon reaction may not be lowered or may eve n be
time to various visual stimuli. For increascd.
'noise' the y employed a sound harnmer Eff ect of Distraction by N oise on
striking an anvil near the su bject. lute!lig ence-Test Seo res. Tinker (90)
Noise was presented (a) continuously and Hovey (35) administered intelli-
during both reaction and rest periods gencc tests under noisy ( intermittent
for sorne tests; ( b) continuously, but bell) and quier conditions to large
only during the reaction periods for groups of subjects. The noise had no
another series; and (e) intermitt entl y, detrimental effect, as revealed in test
but only during the reactions proper seo res, althou gh in Hovcy's expe ri-
for a third set of tests. Cassel and ment the noise had sorne, but not a
Dallenbach summarize their results as statistically significant, deleterious ef-
follows: fect (8 1).
12 JOURNAL OF SPEECH ANO HEARING DISORDERS

Eff ects of N oise ou Mental and fatigue must be the result if workers
Muscular lV ork . Since it appeared keep up production in noise.
that distraction, due to repeated ap- Harmon (29) criticizes Laird's me-
plications of noise in terms of its ef- tabolism data, pointing out the lack
fects on reaction time, simple learn- of proper controls and of an adjust-
ing problems and intelligence-test ment period to the metabolism ma-
seores, was negligible, investigators chine. He considers Laird's studv as
turned to measuring work outpt on 'suggestive, and little more. '
various mental and muscular tasks on b. Hsiao (36) reports that 'noise'
the assumption that noisc, if it did not caused a 5 .6 % decrease in speed, and
disrupt activity by being distractive, an increase of 26.6 % in wrong an-
required a greater expenditure of ef- swers in the multiplication of num-
fort that would lead to fatigue and rc- bers for a !O-minute period by grade
duced efficiency. The results of these school students. The noise tests were
studies appear to be contradictory; a conducted first, however , followed
number demonstratcd reduced effi- eight days later by tests in the quier.
ciencv bccause of noise, while others lt is possible that practice effects
prov;d that noise does not reduce alone could account for the finding.
efficiency and may even increase it. The length of test was also very
l. St{1dies Sho~ving a Deleterious short.
Effect. a. Laird ( 45) attempted to c. Luckiesh (5 5) obtained a sta-
measure the oxygen consumption of tisticall y significant increase in time
typi sts when working in a room with required (.82 vs .77 minutes) to take
hard surfaced walls and, then, when the General Electric 'De monstration
the walls were covered with a sound Visual Test' in a noisy generator room
absorbing material. Noises generated in a factory over a quiet room. The
bv ball bearings rotating in a sheet work was done in a booth, in both sit-
iron, hexagonal drum, a siren, and a uation s, with the leve! of illumination
telephone "bell ali operating inter- controlled.
mitt ently and automatically, were d. Laird ( 49) set up an 'experimen-
present throughout the tests . Laird tal factory' employing two workers at
found a 4. 3 % increase in speed when a time. The workers inserted an elec-
sound absorbing material was applied trical stylus in small holes as they ap-
to the walls; error seores remained the pearcd in a moving tape and record
same. 19 % more oxygen was con- was kept of work done. The workers,
sumed ( the subjects breathed through all college students, were paid 40c an
a metabolism-measuring device during hour and worked four and one half
ali the tests) when the walls were bare hours each afternoon. Noise from a
than when covered with sound-ab- 3-A \Vestern E lectr ic Audiometer
sorbing material. No statistics are was amplified and presented to the
presented whereby t h e increased workers by loud speakers at a number
speed can be tested for significance of intensitv levels. Each of four work-
and only four subjects were used. ers worked for three months. No in-
Laird concludes that because of the dividual r esults or daily records are
increased effort on the part of the presented, but we are told that records
subjects w he n in the reverberant for 'humid days, hot days or days
room, the effect of the noise was less when one of the subjects felt indis-
detrimental than expected, and greater posed are also not included.'
 NOISE AND BEHAVIOR 13

- ured oxygen consumption and found

--
1"'
-""""
......
little or no increase in consumption
when doing arithmetic problems or

/
~
!
.. ,
1 m
",.'----''-----',.'------',,,----'-.,----'.,,
'::,;::,,c,ns-,"""'or
FIGURE2. Production output at dexterous
repem1ve work under various inten sity
levels of complex noise. From Laird (49),
with permis sion of the author, the American
Psyc hologic al Association and the Jou rnal
of Applie d Psychology.
Figure 2 is taken from Laird's re-
port of this experiment. Two things
are apparent: ( l) in loud noise pro-
duction increases with time, suggest-
ing a daily adaptation; Laird ( 46)
pre viously held that fatigue from
noise shou!d lower work output,
( 2) the more intense the noise, the
greater the inicial decrease in pro-
duction . Laird states that as a precau-
reading.
b. Harmon (29) conducted a study
(see Figure 3) of the effects of noiie
(phonograph record of office and
street noise played at 50 to 65 db and
65 to 75 db respcctively) on arith-
metic computation . Full and careful
measures were made of changes in
111
,._ metabolism. He found that the in-
creases in the working values caused
hy th e noises may run as high as 60 %
during the first days of an experiment,
out that when the subj ect is presented
with the same situation day after day ,
over a period of severa! weeks, the
noise effects gradually disappear and
th e working values return to normal.
lt was det ermined that when a person
i:~.
8
-
00

80

70 ~

1
tion against the subjects not being
used to the noise, the data for th e
...
' 0t
9
f ..,
~-------------- --
'""' .
-
90

o ~
s
~

loud er noises were obtained last in

the course of the experiment. T his ~----------
experimental procedure vitiat es the :: ------ ... ,u ~
experiment, for it is well known that
the motivation of subjects can well
..1 lX lit IX I n m m
0AY GIIQUPS
decrease from th e beginnin g of a 0A1 G~

three -mo nth experiment to the end,
th creby acc ountin g for the apparent
decr easc in produ ct ion with mo re in-
tense noises.
2. Studies Showing no Deleterious
Effect. a. Vernon and Warner (94)
found an increa se in speed in doing
arithmetic problems w h e n noise
(gramaphone reco rds, bells, whistles,
sirens) was introduc ed after a brief
perod of adaptation. They also meas-
FIGURE3. Output of one subject in number
of multiplication problems done and per
cent correet during quier and noise co n-
ditions. Quier periods, broken lines; noise
periods, solid lines. Series A, quier and
noise co nditi ons present on alternare days;
Series B, JO-minute work period in qui et,
followed by 10-mnute work period in
noise (offiee) on eaeh day; Series C, same
as B, exeept street noise; Series D, same as
B, except different subject . From Harmo n
(29), with permission of the author, the
American Psychologieal Association, and
the Archives of Psychology.
14 JOURNAL OF SPEECH ANO
beca me ad justed to a noise leve! and
method of presentation, any change
rcquired a brief period of adaptation.
c. A similar result was obtained by
Ford (25) who found there was an
initial slowing up of the speed pcr
problem at the beginning of the noise
and again when quiet was restored.
In this experiment subjects added sums
under quiet, under noise, and again
under quiet conditions.
d. Obata et al (68) studied the ef-
fects of a 'scratching ' or grinding
noise from a mechanical noise machine
and also various types and intensities
of music on the efficiency of 24 high
school students taking cancellation,
addition and transcription tests. 'Mere
noise' they found had little effect on
efficiency in the tasks studied.
e. A series of well-conducted ex-
periments on the effect of noise were
reponed by Pollock and Bartlett (72)
in 1932. They chose for investigation
a number of tests of motor ski!!, one
of which required the subjects to in-
sert in or remove from a rapidly mov-
ing platform a small peg when the
platform was in a certain position, and
a number of 'mental' tasks, such as
making as many words as possiblc
from a given group of letters. A num-
ber of ty pes of noises were employcd,
including the sound of 12 heavy print-
ing presses, gramaphone re c o r d s,
clicks presented through earphones,
bells, etc.
Proper experimental precautions
with regard to sequence of testing in
quiet and noise appear to have been
observed and adequate numbers of
subjects employed. Besides m a n y
quantitative measures of performanc e,
subjective impressions of the effects
of noise were obtained from the sub-
jects. The conclusions may be sum-
marized as follows:
HEARING DISORDE RS
( 1) In general, noise has an ad verse
initial effect of no great magnitude
which rapidly wears off, whether the
task be chiefly mental or motor in
character.
(2) Discontinuous loud rnechani-
cal noises, and 'soft' grarnaphone rec-
ords of music were more disturbing
than continuous loud noises, indicat-
ing that the disturbance was not sim-
ply a matter of loudness.
(3) Subjective reports indicated
that a sound could be extremelv ir-
ritating without lessening the effi.cien-
cy of performance. Sorne sounds rated
as che most annoying were not also
rated as the most distracting.
f. Tests conducted wit h 'militar y'
noises on psycho-rnotor efficiency
were conducted early in World War
II by S. S. Stevens and associa tes ( 87,
88) . For chese tests simulaced aircraft
noise was generated in a test charnber
and its spectra and over-all intensity
were measured. T wo noise levels were
used, (a) 'quiet' leve! (90 db re .0002
dyne / crn 2 ) that was loud enough to
rnask casual extraneous laboratory
sounds and to discouragc conversation
among the subjects, and (b) a 'noise'
leve! (115 db re .0002 dyne / cm 2 ) that
corresponds to about the noise leve! in
the cabin of a typ ical bombing plane.
Five subjects were in the noise con-
tinuously for seven-hour periods , for
four consecutive days a week, durin g
the major experiments which extended
over four consecutive weeks. The
'quiet' and 'noise ' conditions and se-
quence of tests werc properly bal-
anced and controlled. le is to be noted
that the 'quier' condition was noisier
than th e 'noise' condition for most
of the other experirnents presented.
This may, or may not, have been a
significant factor determining che re-
sults.
 NOISE ANO BEHAVIOR
In a recent NDRC Summary Tech-
nical Report, this work was reviewed
hy i\liller, vVeiner and Stevens (see
130, Part III, this report). They di-
vidcd the tests into those that gave
inconclusive results and those that
shmYed no effect from the noise. The
following tests were inconclusive:
( 1) Coordina te Serial Reaction-
Tirne. Here the suhject manipulated
:m airplane stick and rudder bar to
drect a beam of light at a target fol-
lowing a definite path on a large panel.
Each of the subjects made 20,400 re-
actons in noise and 'quiet.' The reac-
tion in noise was slower by 5.4 %
anci th e number of errors was greater
by 5.4 % . Examination of this test fol-
lowing the completion of the experi-
menr, however, revealed that the sub-
jects when working in the 'qu iet'
could have made use of certain 'clicks'
of timng relays n the apparatus that
were not audible in the noise . The ex-
perimenters believe, although it was
not further tested, that these acoustic
clues in the quiet biased the results of
this test, particularly since other
sirnibr tests showed no effects due to
no:sc. At th e time the first repon of
thesc findings was made, these extra
clues had not been recognized by the
experimenters (87).
(2) Muscular Tension. This was
rneasured by recording electric po-
tentials from arms and legs of sub-
jccts. Although th ere was sorne evi-
dence of increased tension in the
noise , the records were difficult to in-
t erp ret becaus e of gross muscular
movements that created artifacts in
thc recordings.
( 3) Metabolism. B r e f measure -
mcnts repeat ed severa! times during
thc day indicated that for sorne sub-
jects there was an incr ease in rneta-
bolc rate in the loud er noise, while
15
in other subjects no consistent effects
could be noted.
( 4) Breathing. Noise caused sorne,
but not all, subjects to breathe more
rapidly and less deeply.
( 5) Speed of Accommodation . The
speed with which the eye can change
focus from a near to a distant object
and vice versa was reduce d by long
exposure to noise, but individual dif-
ference s prevented any generaliza-
tions.
( 6) Saccadic Eye Movements. The
speed with which the eyes could be
moved through an angle of 37 de-
grees was reduc ed by the noise for
one, but only one, of four subjects.
(7) I3ody sway. The ability of sub-
jects to stand erect without swaying
was measured by an ataxiameter. No
particular relationship between steadi-
ness and noise was discovered.
(8) Hand Steadiness. The subjects
were periodicall y required tQ hold a
small stvlus in th e center of a small
(3 mm) hole without touching the
walls. The noise resulted in a slight
incrcase in steadiness, apparently by
'insulating' the subject from any dis-
tractions in his environ ment.
(9) R eve rsible Perspective. T he
subjects were asked to fixate a rev ersi-
ble figure and to pr ess a key at th e oc-
currence of each voluntary reversa!.
A ny relationship between this visual
phenomenon and noise was obstructed
by variability.
( 10) Dark Adaptation. No conclu-
sive effects of noise on th e thr eshold
of visual illumination were obtained.
The following tests are not inc on-
clusive like the ones mentioned above,
but are positive in their proof that
man can maintain the same levels of
perfo rmance for these seven tasks in
th e noise as in the 'quiet.'
16 JOURNAL OF SPEECH AND
( l) Coordinated Serial Pursuit. In
this task the subject was required to
adjust, by mcans of airplane controls,
the position of the spot on a cathode-
ray oscilloscope and the position of
a pointer on a d i r e c t i o n meter.
Graphic records were kept of each of
the three dimensions of movement.
The performance of the subjects was
unimpaired by the noise .
( 2) Serial Disjunctive Reaction
Time. The ability of the subjects to
press a key with the appropriate hand
or foot, depending on \.vhich of four
lights was illuminated in front of him,
was absolutely unimpaired by the
noise. Each subject rnade 24,480 re-
actions in noise and the same number
in 'quiet.'
(3) Fast-Speed Pursuit Rotor.
Here the subject was required to fol-
low with a stylus a small disk near the
edge of a phonograph turn table re-
volving 99 rpm. The noise had no ef-
fect.
( 4) Card Sorting. The ability and
spccd of sorting 12 kinds of cards
into 12 compartments was maintained
in noise as well as in 'quiet.'
( 5) Coding Tes t. The subjects
translated written material into code
as rapidly in noise as in the 'quiet.'
(6) Judgment of Distance. Mon-
ocular judgments of distance, meas-
ured by the ability of the subjects to
adjust the distance of a movable wire
to match the distance of a compari -
son wire, were unaffectcd by the
noise.
(7) Subj ec tiv e Experiences. The
subjects filled out daily question-
naires regarding their feelings and uni-
formly expressed preference for the
'quiet' days. There was an incon-
sistent tendenc y to report greater feel-
ings of fatigue at the end of the ex-
periments in noise than in 'quiet.'
HEARING DISORDERS
It was concluded from this rev1ew
that airplane noise has no, or at the
worst, but slight detrimenta\ effect
upon motor coordination, reaction
time, sensory perceptions , and certain
mental functions even after exposures
lasting seven hours. N evertheless, ali
the subjects expressed a preference
for the quiet over the noise conditions
and tended to report subjective feel-
ings of greater fatigue and irrit ability
after being subjected to the no ise.
g. Another experiment which was
conducted with respect to the mili-
tary situation dealt with effects of
loud s o u n d s on the accuracy of
azimuth tracking and stereosopic
range finding with a gun-fire control
device (91) . In this expcriment, op-
erators were subjectcd to phonograph-
ically recorded sounds, such as air-raid
sirens, exploding bombs, and air-
planes. The results were summar ized
in one report (91) as follows :
Expcriments ar Tufts Collcgc and Brow n
University rev ea[ that loud sounds (up
to 120-130 db) do not produce a dccre-
ment in qu ality in eithcr azimuth track-
ing or in stercoscopic range finding,
within the limits of this exper imen t. This
includes the condition wherc loud sounds
had not been previously experienced and
its onset unexpect ed . Indeed , in the case
of azimuth tracking, the introduction of
a loud sound, aft er a four -hour rra cking
period, resulted in improvcd perform-
ance which lasts for the durarinn of the
sound. Rerurn to the previous leve[ of
performance is rapid . Obscrvcrs reporr
rhat the sound pro duc ed muscular ten-
sion, but, nevertheless, was a relief from
rhe monotony and an aid in stay ing
awake.
h. A study was conducted for the
Navy by the Research Laboratory of
the American Society of Heating and
Ventilating Engineers to determine
the accuracy and variability of wor k
output of men working in hot spaces
with different noise levels (95). It
 NOISE AND BEHAVIOR
was found that noise had no effect on
work accuracy or output, but that
noise above 80 and 90 db resulted in
feelings of irritability and unpleasant-
ness on the part of the workers.
General Couclusions from Labora-
tory Tests. The experiments on the
effects of noise on mental and motor
activity conducted under laboratory
conditions can be grouped into three
categorics:
1. Experiments demonstrating defi-
nite ddeterious effects of noise. Near-
lv ali, if not ali, of these studies can
be hcavily criticized on one or more
points so that their findings can be ac-
cepted only \vith considerable reser-
vations .
2. Experiments demonstrating
slight, inconsistent, or inconclusive
detrimental effects from noise.
3. Experiments that demonstrate
conclusively that man can do muscular
and mental work as efficient!y and
productively in noise as in quiet, even
for prolonged periods. For sorne few
tasks, noise apparently improves per-
formance. These findings are explain::d
as follows:
a. Difficult tasks . The subjects ,con-
centrnte on the task and ignore noise.
F or some tasks, such as aiming a gun,
apparently noise permits a greater
concentration of attention than is
achieved in average quier conditions.
b. Easy tasks. Noise <loes not dis-
turb perf orrnance since the task be-
comes automatized.
c. Voluntary compensation. Sub-
jects work harder because of the noise.
d. Involuntary compensation. Ad-
aptation sets in with contnued expo-
sure to a noise so that the noise be-
comes a part of one's environment.
Adaptation to the acoustic environ-
mcnt is possibly a vcry real reaction
that reduces regular or continuous
17
noises that do not reach the thres-
holds of fcclng or pain to a subjec-
tive status that precludcs thcir intcr-
ference with non-auditory activity.
One thinks of the way man adapts to
changes in light leve! without inter-
ference with psycho-motor activity,
and of the story of the lighthouse
keeper who gave a startled cry, 'What
in the world is that noise?' whcn the
fog horn which he had heard sound-
ing every 30 seconds for IO years
suddenly ceased bleating.
It is to be understood, of course,
that these conclusions apply only
within the limits of the kinds of noises
and tasks employed in the experi-
mcnts discussed.
FEELL'.\GS OF AN:'\OYANCE
Mention has been made previously
of efforts to secure from the subjects
of noise experirnents their subjective
impressions of the effects of noise and
their actitudes towards it.
The annoying value of various
noises appears to vary with a number
of aspects of the noise. A few of the
more obvious are:
l. Unexpectedness. Unexpected
nose can elict certain startle or fright
reactions. These will be discussed in
a later section.
2. Interference with Auditory Be-
havior. There have been no system-
atic investigations of annoyance due
to masking.
3. Inappropriateness. The cracking
of peanut sheils at a concert, rnusic
'\vhen one is trying to concentrare,
etc., are examples. Individual differ-
ences and variablit y make it probably
impossible to order sounds or noises
on this characteristic with respect to
their annoyingness.
4. Intermittency. Cassel and Dall-
enbach (16) found that an intermit-
111 JOURNAL OF SPEECH ANO HEA RING DISO RDERS
tent noise resisted habituation more
than a continuous sound. Also, Pol-
lock and Bartlett (72) found that ir-
regular mechancal noises were al-
ways initially displeasing. They found
no particular consistent relationship,
however, betwecn work output and
subjcctive fcelings of irritation due to
noisc.
5. Reverberation. Sabine and Wil-
son (7 6) report that the 'spreading'
or lack of localization of noise con-
tributes to its annoying quality .
6. Intensitv or Loudness. Other
things being equal the more intense a
given noise, the more annoying it is.
(50, 74). The intensity threshold at
which any sound becomes annoying,
however, has not as yet been deter-
mined . Half of the wo.rkers in vVeston
and Adams study (99) reported a
complete indifference to the noise
which measured 96 db . Stcvens et al
(88) report subjective feelings of ir-
ritability in subjects working in 115
db re .0002 dyne / cm' of airplane
noise. The same subjects apparently
did not report disagreeable effects
when they worked in only 90 db re
.0002 dyne / cm 2 of airplane noise.
Seven out of IO subjects reponed
greater than normal feelings of ir-
ritability after serving in an experi-
ment requiring them to spend 20
hours over a six-week period in 120
db re .0002 dyne / cm 2 of tu rbo-jet
engine noise (70). It was found in
another study (23) that noises above
80 and 90 dh resulted in feelings of
unpleasantness on the part of sorne of
the subjects.
7. Frequency pattern. There have
been severa! studies in which sounds
of differing spectra were compared
with regard to their annoyance. In
most of these researches, two sounds
were adjusted to equal subjective an-
noyance and their loudnesses or m-
tensities were then compared.
Laird and Coye (50) had subjects
adjust the intensity of a number of
-
pure tones until each appeared to be
equally annoying as a standard tone of
256 cps. They found that the higher
frequencies tended to be more annoy-
ing than the 256 cps tone when of
supposedly equal loudness.
Reese and Kryter (74) found es-
sentialy the same effect when using
bands of noise. In this experiment,
the bands of noise were equated first
for equal loudness with respect to a
'standard' band of noise extending
from 1900 to 2450 cps and secondly
for annovance. The results shown in
Figure 4. revea! that annoyance is a
characteristic of sound that is discrim-
inable from loudness. There is sorne
evidence, however, that subjects be-
come adapted to this characteristic
with prolonged testing so that the an-
novance and loudness contours he-
co~e less separated ( 44).
lt was found that the reduction of
high-frequency components of noise
by acoustic treatment of a bomber
reduced the annoyance to such an ex-
tent that the noise in the treated
bomber could be 10 db more intense
than the noise in the untreated bomber
before they were considered as equal-
ly annoying (88).
Parkinson and Jack ( 69) report that
a variety of actual experiences in
acoustic engineering indicate t h a t
high-frequency noise rcquires special
attention ali out of proportion to its
relative intensit y .
Perhaps related to the relationship
hctween frequency pattern and an-
noyance is the fact that high fre-
quencies tend to be more damaging
to the ear than low frequencics.
 NO ISE AND BEHAV IOR 19

FREOUEHCY IN CPS
5

o
10 ltlO 394 670 1000
...
1420

1 - _,. e-.:...
---.
l900 2450 1120

-,--t- --~--
-
4000 SIOO 8100 9000 14000

a'.)
o
8
- -o
o 8
-10 SOUNO PRU8URE LEVELOF
z (/)
(/) -15
STANOAIIO IANO - 14 01

ow
w
a::
B IS
::> ::>
(/)g 10 o
.
<t -
w ...J ' o
j,,.---
~ <t
~ => o
wo
L-
----
o
...- - !t JR
o-,
o
o
._-g,._ g
ow o
o
8 ' '-.11....
-~- ..,._ o
o

..._,
o
z w -s o o

-
~>
o
IOUNO PIIEHUIIE LEVELOF

0 - -10
z (!)
z 0-IS
STANDARD BANO 84 DI -
<t ~
...JO 10 5-_..,
:5 w ft

o~ ' _.....
W:::>
zw
O o
r-
o
o
---G. .-
. ---- ---- Cl

I', o
o
1

;a a:: -s
~ g
o
t ',
'

I - --,..
o
,o
o
i

-
-H)
o o a--
w IOONO PIIESSURE LEVEL OF 1
o
~ ...J-1s
..;.
0
o~-20 STANDARD IANO 74 01 g
w
g;; ~ 10
o
ti o
- --
-- -- .... --
A

s o
o: ci .,,,...,t-- o i-.,,..oo... t
-
o
o -
o
o

ci a::
0
T o
o
o
,._8 o
o
o
o
o
!
~
V
o
-10
o A
o o .. -t.,
-1r-
r-_
o
o ~'
IOUNO PIIESSURI: LEVEI. Of'
-15

-20
STANDARD IANO - .4 08
..,. o
ft

o 250 SOO 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 tll') .2000 27110 1000 HOO
2 1 4 11 e 7 1 1 ") 11 11 13
PITCH IN MELS
F 1GL:RE4. Equa l annoyancc contours for bands of noise 250 ivlels wide; Band no . 7 taken
as standard. 5 sub jccts. From Krytcr ( 41).

PHYSIOLoc1cAL REACTIONs To No,sE turn to normal. The apparent diffi-

Brief ment ion has been rnade pre- cu !ty of measuring metabolism pre-
viouslv of the effects of noise <..
n me- eludes am detcrmination of small dif-
taboli;m. The weight of the evidcnc e _ferences ~r changes in metabolic rate.
appears to indicare an initial rise in Int erna! Changes. Davis (21) re-
metabolic rate because of noise, but ports an increase in muscle tension
with continued exposure there is a re- and a decrease in th e resistance of the
20 JOURNAL OF SPEECH ANO HEARING DISORDERS
skin to an electric current in the pres-
ence of noise. Both return to normal
with continued repetitions of noise.
Stevens (87) found an inconclusive
but slight tendency for muscle tension
to be greater in noise than in the quier .
Morgan ( 6S) also found greater mus-
cular tension in his subjects in inter-
mittent noise than in the quiet.
Smith and Laird (82) found a de-
crease in peristaltic contractions and
in the flow of saliva and gastric juices
following sudden unexpected noises
of 80 and 90 db. Apparently, only two
1O-minute periods of noise were pre-
sented to each subject so that adapta-
tion to the noise could not have been
achieved.
Kennedy (38) describe s an experi-
ment in which a tambour was placed
over skull defects of operated patients
and variations of intra-cranial pres-
sure were grapheJ. A sharp loud re-
port produced a decided rise in intra-
cranial pressure. There is ample evi-
dence (51, 54) that a sharp report will
cause a gener:,l rise in blood pressure.
Many of the above responses can
be classed a, startle responses to an
unexpect ed or disturbing stimulus. I t
is to be noted that in those experi-
ments in which che noise became ex-
pected, t h e interna! phy~~'llogical
changes returned to normal.
In a recent study, a1kle and Pop-
peo (23) exposed 10 n ',1 for one-hour
periods for JO days followed by two-
hour periods for five days to noise of
ahout 120 db re .0002 dy ne / cm 2 The
noise was generated by a turbo-jet
engine. Numerous ph ysiological meas-
ures indicated complete adaptation,
for the investigators found that th e
subjects were normal before, during
and after daily exposure to the engine
noise in respect to (a) pulse rat e,
(b) respiratory rate, (c) blood pres-
sur e, ( d) basal metabolism, (e) visual
acuity, (f) electrocardiograph, (g)
electroencephalogrnph, (h) urinary
tests, (i) kidney function tests, (j)
sedimentation rates, (k) bleeding and
clotting times, (1) icteric indices, and
(m) x-rays of chest and abdomen.
Effects ou Vision. Of a somewhat
different order are some effec ts of
noise or sound upon certain visual
functions, such as flicker ( 42), colour
sensibility (J, 43), accommodation
and eye movement s (87). These ef-
fects appear to be so small as to go
unnoticed unless measured by ex-
tremel y accurate methods in the lab-
oratory an~ rh~ clfrcts rnay be either
i11i!.irnr)' or excitato.ry, depending
upon the particular function studied
and the intensity of the noise.
It is possible that noise may also
exerc sorne slight eff ects upon senses
other than vision.
P uB LJC H EALT H AJ';D No,sE
No attempt was made to examine
the popular literature on che effects
of noise on public health, but a dis-
couraging number of opinions and un-
warranted statements on this subject
wcre found in the medical journals.
Statements are made that noise is
ruinng the public health (5), that
it is filling our mental institutions
(56), and that since the onset of the
industrial revolution, it has caused a
steady decline in the brth rate (71).
i\,Jost of thcse conclusions are based
on generalization and extrapolations
from experirnents based on short ex-
posures to noises that did not allow
adaptaion. Adaptation to noises is not
re cog 1ized in these theori es or it is
proposed that adaptation to noise is
costl y. Kenned y (38) states, for ex-
arnple, that persons adapted to noise
do not realize that 'energy and virtue
 NOISE AND BEHAVIOR
[sic] is going out from them, that
fatigue is on the way, and that tolera-
tion takes its to!!.'
1\fo\t of the evidence, however, re-
vcals that once adaptation to noise is
achie, cd energ y is not expended at a
n1te significantl y greater than normal.
Except as the more or less continu-
ow; noises of the factory, office, home
and street may damage the car of man,
th erc is but little evidence of any
damage or interference of a physiolog-
ical :sort by such noises, although sub-
jectin feelings of anno y ance are ex-
prcssed by sorne of the people ex-
posed.
f:FFE CTS OF EXTREME l1'TENS1TIES
U p to this point, this study has been
c.:,ncerned with noises and sounds en-
coumere<l in industries, in the planes
and other vehicles or Vhrld War II
and with approximations of tk'.11 as
generat ed in the laboratori es. Th ese
~oises extended up to about 120 db
re .0002 dyne / cm 2 Apparently , man
can completel y or nearly completely
adapt, both voluntaril y and involun -
taril y . to these noises as they continue
so that the y have little objective ef-
fect on his non-auditor y behavior.
Sounds above that leve!, however,
have ccrtain con sequences that are not
observable at lower levels. For one
thin g, the thresholds of feeling, tickle
and, perhaps, pain are reached , and
thes e sensations adapt only to th e de-
gree that with continu ed stimulation
at high intensities these thresholds will
rise 5 to 10 db.
Sound levels as high as 150 db re
.0002 dvne / cm 2 have been measur ed
ncar th exhaust of a turbo -jet air craft
engin e (70). (T he sound levels inside
th ; cockpit of a turbo -jet plan e are
considcrably less, reaching only about
115 db.)
21
Parra, Eldredge and Koster (70)
recently reponed the eff ects on man
of turbo-jet engine noise and siren-
generated sounds of the order of 150
db re .0002 dyne/ cm 2 These effects
can be summarized as follows:
( 1) Severe but temporary hearing
loss.
(2) Heating of the skin. (When
rats and guinea pigs were exposed
for sufficient lengths of time they died
because of increased body tempera-
ture .)
(3) At frequencies between 700
and 1500 cps, from the siren or in the
presence of the turbo-jet engine, there
is a sensation of vibration of the
cranial bones, and air movement in the
nasal passages and sinuses. Vision be-
comes blurred , apparently due to vi-
bration of th e eyeballs.
( 4) An apparent weakening of the
body supporting muscul ature . This is
apparently not the result of a true
muscu~2r weakness but results from an
effect on the proprioceptive reflex
mechanism, since with conscious ef-
fort one can maintain normal posture.
The investigators :;Jg~est d,at these
effects, which have usuall y been at-
tributed to the action of 'ultrasonic'
frequencies present near the turbo-jet
engine, are really the result of the ex-
tremely inten se sound in the audible
ran ge .
Finkle and Poppen (23) observed
th e effects in 1O men of the exposure
to th e noise near a turbo-jet engine.
The noise at the positions taken by
the subject s r eached as high as 120
db, which was not nearly as int ense
as that generated in the experiments
of Parrack, Eldredge and Koster.
GE :-iERAL C o NcL u s10:-is
A survey of the literature pert aining
to the effects of noise on ment al and
22 JOURNAL OF SPEECH AND HEARING DISORDERS
motor work in industry and in the
laboratorv situation and to related
studies ~oncerning annoyance and
physiological reactions to noise has
been made. This survey shows that
nearly ali industrial and laboratory
expet:iments which report that noise
advcrsely affects work output are
open to criticism because of poor cx-
perimentation and uncontrolled fac-
tors. ( Ily 'work' is meant any mental
and motor tasks not involving com-
munication by speech.) On the other
hand, experiments carried out with
proper control of ali pertinent factors
revea! that steady or expected noises
do not adversely affect psycho-motor
activity to any significant extent. As
a mattcr of fact, there is sorne evi-
dence that noise may 'insulate' a per-
son from intermittent distractions in
his environment so that on sorne tasks.
such as aiming a gun, performance is
better in noise than in quiet.
The general ineffectiveness of nois.;
on work output and on psycho-motor
performance can be largdy explained
by a psychological and physiological
adaptation and perra>sby an increase
in effort un thc part of the subjects.
A Lout 50 % of subjects exposed for
long periods to intense, and particular-
ly to high-frequency noise, feel that
exposure to such noise makes them
more irritable than normal. Some
comfort is g a i n e d by preventing
stcady noises from exceeding 90 db
re .0002 dyne/ cm 2 at the position of
the listcner. Most pcrsons exposed
to intense noisc as high as 120 db
re .0002 dyne/ cm 2 as a matter of
course in their work apparently be-
come indifferent to it. Mention is
made of certain definite effects of
noise when its leve! is as high as 150
db re .0002 dyne/cm 2
Although steady-state noises appear
to have little real effect on work out-
put, it will have an adverse effect upon
communication by speech or other
auditory signals, and it has been ex-
pcrimentally demonstrated that the
'annoyance value' of a noise is related
to its spectrum. Noises containing the
higher frequencies of sound are more
annoying than those of predominately
low frequencies.
Probably most of the experiments
conductcd on this problem did not re-
flcct the fu]] impact of noise on the
performance of the office and indus-
trial worker in that the studies were
primarily confined to non-auditory
work not involving communication,
whereas communication is required in
most occupations. Thus, noise ab-
sorption and reduction should lead to
greatcr efficiency and comfort of the
office and industrial worker, alth ~ugh
most of the .,experi;11ental results so far
have bcen negative or inconclusive.
REFERE~CES
l. ALLE'>, F. A:slDScmVARTZ, i'd. The ef-
fect of srimulation of the senses of
vision, hcaring, rastc, and smell upon
the sensibility of the organs of vision.
J. gen. P/Jysiol., 1940, 24, 105-121.
2. [Anon.J E.ffect of noise upon efficiency.
Mo11. Labor Re7.:., 1930, 30, 1199-1208.
3. [Anon.J Incrcascd production rcsulting
from lessening noisc. 1\1ou. Labor Rev.,
1928, 27, 249-250.
4. [Anon.] Production helpcd by quieting
shop. lndustr. Psycbol., 1928, 3, 323.
5. ARcHAs!IlAt:LT, L. The effect of noise
on the nenous system. A plea for of-
ficial action by this socictv toward
abarement of rhis damaging nuisance.
N. Y. St. J. Med., 1932, 32, 1110-1115.
6. BAKER, K. H. Pre-experimental ser in
disrracrion experimcnrs. /. gen. Psycbol.,
1937, 16, 471-488.
7. BA:slDEIRA DE MELLO, J. Sounds, noiscs,
and vibrarion from point of view of
industrial hygicnc. Hora med. Ria de
Jrmeiro, 1945, 16, 25-30.
8. BAsu, N. _\,f. The bancful cffecrs of
noise on human bcings. Science a11d
CuJture, Calcutta, 1939, 5, 155-158.
 NOISE AND BEHAVIOR
9. Bt.....-J.\:',UNS,c. E. A:-iD 1VIOREAUX,R.
Dis:igreeablc vestibular reflcxes by son-
orous excirarion. Oto-rhino-laryng. im.,
;9,9, 23, 541-550 .
JO. B1::
Rc;u1s, R. Disrracrion from work
rhrough nose and music and irs typo-
ligical rclaronships. Z. Arbeitsphysiol.,
1939, 12, 88-114 .
11. BtRRIEN, F. K. The effecrs of nose.
I'sychol. Bu/1., 1946, 12, 141-161.
12. Bo.\s, E. P. ANO,vEiss, 1\1. M. The hearr
rare during sleep as derermncd by rhe
cardiorachomerer. J. Amer. med. Ass.,
1929, 92, 2162-2168 .
U. BOGOSLOVSKY, A. l. Thc effecr of sound
upon rhe elecrrc sensitivity of the cye.
Du/1. Biol. Med. exp. U.R.S.S., 1937, 3,
307-309.
14. RocosLovsKY, A. l. AND K11wKov, S. V.
Thc influence of noise of an aircraft
enginc upon vision. Probl. fiziol. Optik.,
1941. 1, 69-75.
15. IBrown Univ.] The effects of loud
sou11ds 011 rhc accuracv of azimuth
tr;1cking and of srereoscopic range find-
ing. Nov. 27, 1942. OSRD Rept. no.
1001.
16. C.\SSEL, E. E. ANO DALLENBACH, K. M.
Thc effcct of audirory distracrion upo11
che sensory reacrion. Amer. J. Psychol.,
1918, 29, 129-143.
17. C.HTELL, J. i\kK. Psychometric mcas-
urements. Philos. Stud., 1886, 3, 305-
335.
18. Co).;1,u:,, V. ANO DrM:-.ucK, F. L. An
cx:,erimenral srudy of fcar. Amer. J.
f'sychol., 1925, 36, 96-101.
19. Co).;NOLLY,J. l. Public hcalth engineer-
ng: The air wc breathe and the sounds
wc hear . Amer. J. publ. Hlth., 1934, 24,
260-265.
20. DAv1s, A. H. Sorne aspecrs of rhe prob-
lem of noise. Occup . Psycbol., Lond.,
1938, 12, 43-55.
21. D,,1rs, R. C. Electrical skin resisrance
bcfore, during, and after a period of
nnisc srmularon. J. exp. Psychol., 1932,
15, 108-117.
22. DoR:-.1AN,P. Annoying noise of our of-
fices. Northw. Med ., Seflttle, 1932, 31,
317-321.
23. FL",KLE,A. L. ANO PoPPEN, J. R. Cln-
ica! cffccts of noise and mechanical vi-
brations of a turbo-jet engine on man.
f. appl. Physiol., 1948, 1, 183-204.
23
24. Furz, J. vV. ANo WoLF, E. G. The ef-
fcct of noise 011 aviation personnel.
Contact, Pensacola, 1943, 3, 160-167.
25. FoRo, A. Attcntion-automatization: an
investigation of the tra11sitional nature
of mind. Amer. J. Psychol., 1929, 41,
1-32.
26. GLIBERT, D. J. Influencc of industrial
noiscs. J. industr. Hyg., 1922, 3, 264-
275.
27. GoLDIJERG,J. A. Noise - enemy of
hcalth. Safety Engng., 1945, 89, 63-64.
28. HM.ILIN, A. J. Attention and distrac-
tion. Amer. J. Psychol., 1896, 8, 3-66.
29. HARNioN, F. L. The effects of noise
upon certain psychological physiological
proccsscs. Arch. Psycbol ., N. Y., 1933,
No. 147, 1-81.
30. HARTLEY,E. L. Barrlc noise cquipment
and scrccning of flccr groups, prelimi-
nary tabulations. [Brown Univ.J July
28, 1944. PB no. 12054.
31. HARTLEY,E. L. Al\'OJoNES, D. B. Final
sumrnary of rcsearch on che use of bar-
tic noisc cquipment. Brown Univ.
Apr. 12, 1945. OSRD Rept. no. 4931.
32. HARTMANN,G. ,v. H. Changes in visual
acuity through simultaneous stimulation
of other sense organs. J. exp. Psycbol.,
1933, 16, 393-407.
B. H1RATSUKA, S. Psychological experiments
on the effect of unpleasant noise upon
mental work in ncurasthenic patients.
Psycbiat. et Neurol. Japon., 1938, 42,
270-291.
34. HoRDER, [T. J.] Human reactions to
noise. J. R. sm1it. /11st., 1938, 58, 713-
721.
35. HovF.Y, H. B. Effccts of general disrrac-
rion 011 rhe higher rhoughr processes.
Amer. J. Psychol., 1928, 40, 585-591.
36. Hs1Ao, C. H. An experimental study of
thc influence of noisc upon work. Cbiao
yii tsa cbib fTbe Ed11catio1111l
Review],
1937, 27, 99-102.
37. HuzrMoro, K. A'.'IDUENO, Y. How far
scnsory function participares in opera-
tions. Pare I. I nfluencc of sounds u pon
visual acuity. Pare II. Influcnce upon
working efficiency of the presence or
abscnce of typing sounds in the trans-
mission of sounds. Part III. Discussion
of changes in workng movements and
attitudc. Rept. Jap. lnst. Sci. Labor,
1939, No. 44, 1-23.
24 JOURNAL OF SPEECH ANO HEARING
38. KENNEDY,F. Fatigue and noise in in-
dustry. N. Y. St. J. Med., 1936, 36, 1927-
1933.
39. KI)-.'G, \V. G. ANDLA11U),D. A. The ef-
fect of noise intensity and pattern on
locating sounds. / . acoust. Soc . Amer.,
1930, 2, 99-102 .
40. KoRNHAUSER, A. \V. The effect of noise
on o/fice output . Industr. Psycbol.,
1927, 2, 621-622.
41. KRAVKov,S. V. Changes of visual acuity
in one eve under the influence of the
illumination of the other or of acoustic
stimuli. /. exp. Psychol., 1934, 17, 805-
812.
42. --- . Action of auditory stimuli upon
the critica! frcquency of luminous
flickering. Acta ophtbol., Kb!J., 1935, 13,
260-272.
43. ---. The influence of sound upon
the light and colour sensibility of the
cyc. Acta op/Jtbol., Kbh., 1936, 14, 348-
360.
44. Knymn, K. D. Loudness and annoy-
ance value of bands of noisc . Trans.
30tb Ammal Meeting Nat. Forum on
Deafness and Speech Patb., 1948, 26-28.
45. LArno, D. A. The measurement of the
effccts of noise on working efficiency .
J. industr. I-lyg., 1927, 9, 431-434.
46. ---. Expcriments on the physiolog-
ical cost of noise . /. nat. Inst. industr.
Psychol., 1929, 4, 251-258.
47. ---. The cffects of noisc : a sum-
mary of experimental literature. /.
acoust. Soc. Amer., 1930, 1, 256-262.
48. ---. Experiments on the influence
of noise upon digestion, and the count-
eracting effects of various food agen-
cies. Med. J. Rec ., 1932, 135, 461-464.
49. ---. Thc influence of noise on pro-
duction and fatigue, as related tu pitch,
sensation leve!, and steadiness of noise.
J. appl. Psycbol ., 1933, 17, 320-330.
50. LArno, D. A. ANl> CoYE, K ., Psycholog-
ical measurements of annoyance as re-
lated to pitch and loudness. /. acoust.
Soc. Amer., 1929, 1, H8-163.
51. LANDIS, C. AND GuLLEnE, R. Studies
of emocional reactions. III. Systolic
blood pressure and inspiration-expira-
tion ratios. /. comp. Psychol., 1925, 5,
221-253.
52. LINDAHL,R. Noise in industry. Industr.
Med., 1938, 7, 664-669.
DISORDERS
53. L1NG, T. i'vl. Noise. In Ling, T. .\l. Re-
cent Advances in Industrial /-lygiene
and Medicine. Philadelphia: Blakiston's,
1937.
54. LoVELL, G. D . Physiological and motor
responses to a regularly recurring
sound. [Abstraer] Psychol. Bull., 1941,
38, 715.
55. LucKIESH, M. Visual efficiency in quiet
and noisy workplaces. Elcct. U7 orld,
N. Y., 1931, 98, 472-473.
56. i'vlcCARTNEY,J. L. Noise drives us
crazy: the causes of echoeses. Pe1111.
med. J., 1941, 44, 1402-1404.
57. McCoRo, C. P., TEAL, E. E . AND\V1rn-
ER1DGE, \V. N. Noise and its effect on
human beings; noise control as a by-
product of nir conditioning. J. Amer.
med. Ass., 1938, 110, 1553-1560.
58. McCoY, D. A. The industrial noise
hazard. Arch. Otolaryng., Chicago,
1944, 39, 327-330.
59. ---. Industrial noisc-its analysis
and intcrpretation for prevenrivc treat-
ment. /. industr. Hyg., 1944, 26, 120-
123. .
60. McFARLAND,R. A. Fatigue in aircraft
pilots. New Engl. J. Med., 1941, 225,
845-855.
61. i\kKENZIE, D. Nois e and the public
health. /. State Med ., 1934, 42, 542-551.
62. ---. Noisc and hcalth. Brit. med. J.,
1934, 2, 636-637.
63. i\'1AssEY,A. Public health and the noise
problem. Mcd. Offr ., 1935, 54, 85-86.
64. MoRGAN, J. J. B. The o,ercoming of
distraction and other rcsistanccs. Arcb.
Psychol., N. Y., 1916, ;\'o. 35. (Also
published separatcly as a Ph.D. Dis-
sertation, Columbia Univ., 1916.)
65. ---. The effect of sound distraction
upon memor y. Amer. J. Psychol., 1917,
28, 191-208.
66. MoRGAN,ivl. \V. ANDLMSTED,J. ,\l. D.
Response of the human lcns to a sud-
den, startling stirnulus. Proc. Soc. exp.
Biol., N. Y., 1939, 42, 612-613.
67. NAS:\IYTH, T. G. Noise and health.
Ct1ledo11.med. J., 1934, 15, 281-286.
68. BATA, J. AND OTHERS.Thc effects of
noisc upon human cfficiency. /. acowt.
Soc. A111er., 1934, 5, 255-261.
69. PARKINSON,J. s. AND JACK, \V. A . A
rc-examination of the noise reduction
 NOISE AND BEHAVIOR
codficient. /. acoust. Soc. Arner., 1941,
B. 163-169.
70. P.-\RRACK, H. O. A:,IO oTHERS, Physio-
logical effects of intense sound. Engi-
necring div . Air Materiel Command,
.\lay 24, 1948. TIP U2570.
71. PocoLSKY, E. Noise. 11/inois rned. J.,
19H, 67, 478-480.
72. POLLOCK,K. G. ANO BARTLETT,F. c.
Two studies in psychological effects of
noi se. Pare l. Psychological experi-
me nts on che effects of noise. Re pt.
ind u.str. Hlth. Res. Bd., Lond., 1932,
Rept. i\1 0. 65.
7J . Pt TRVES-STEWART,J. The influence of
noise on health. /. R. lnst. pub/. Hlth.
H y g., 1938. 1, 667-671.
74. REESE, T. \V. ANO KRYTER, K. D . The
relati, e annoyance produced by various
b ands of noise. Psycho-acoustic Lah.,
Harrnrd Univ., i\far. 17, 1944. PB No.
~7306.
75. Rlc:1SARTZ,F.. G. Some mental aspects
of a,iation medicine. /. Aviat. Med.,
19'+3, 14, 7\"-83.
76. SA111:-.E,H. J. ANo W1LsoN, R . A . The
application of sound absorption to fac-
tory noise problems. /. acoust. Soc.
Amer .., 1943, 15, 27-31.
77. SABJSE, P. E. The problem of indus-
tri.11 noise. Amer. J. publ. Hlth., 1944,
34, 265-270.
78. ScH:-.Eu., J. The effects of noise u pon
the nervous sysrem. V rosi Szemle,
193.1, 19, 35-45.
79. St H\\'EISHEJMER,\V. Effects of noise in
the rextile industry. Rayon Te.it. Mon.,
1945, 26, 593.
80. S1UGGS,E. B. Changes in pulse, breath-
ing, and steadiness under conditions of
srarrledness and excited expectancy .
J. co111p.Psychol., 1926, 6, 303-317.
81. ---. Mr. Hovcy on distraction .
Amer. J. Psychol., 1929, 41, 162-163.
82. s. .,,1nH, E. L. AND LArno, D. A. Thc
loudness of audirory stimuli whch af-
fect stomach contractions m healthy
human beings. /. acoust. Soc. Arner.,
1930, 2, 94-98.
83. S:-.1YTH,H. F. Noise in industry: its ef-
fect on the hearing and on general
health (a revicw of the lirerarure).
A.11,1. Oto/. Rhinol. T.aryng., 1932, 41,
1108-1116.
Reierence not verified 111 original.
25
84. SNYOER, R. R. Noise and sorne of its
ill effects. / . lowa St. 111ed
. Soc., 1932,
22, 263-267.
S5. SPooNrn, H. J. Health problems in-
volved m noise and fatigue. Rhythms,
cadences, periodicities regulare human
activities, but noise lesscns the aptirude
for work. N11tio11'sHlth., 1922, 4, 91-
95+,
86. --- . The year's progress in the re-
duction of noise. Low's audiometer aids
in determining standard limit of per-
missible no1se. Nation's Hlth., 1922, 4,
368- 369.
87. STEVF .NS, S. S. The effects of noise and
Yibration on psycho-moror efficiency.
Psycho-acoustic Lab., Harvard Univ .,
Mar . 31, 1941. OSRD Rept . no. 32.
88. SrEVENs, S . S. ANO orHERS. Part l. The
effects of noise on psychomotor ef-
ficicncy. Part 11. Noise reduction m
aircraft as relatcd to communication,
annoyance and aura! injury. Psycho-
logical Lab., Harvard Univ., 0cc. 1,
1941. OSRD Rept. no. 274.
89. Swwr, E. J. Disturbance of the at-
tention during simple mental processes.
Amer. J. Psychol., 1892, 5, 1-19.
90. T1NKER, M. A. Jnrelligence in an in-
telligence test with an auditory dis-
tracror. Amer. J. Psychol., 192;, 36,
467-468.
91. Tufrs Coll. The effects of sound on ac-
curacy of azimuth cracking . Sept. 18,
1942. PB No. 60988.
92. VAUGHAN,P. E. ANO VAN LJERE, E. J.
An experimental study on the effect of
noise on thc gastric secrerion in Pavlov
dogs . J. Aviat. Med., 1940, 11, 102, 107.
93. VERNON, H . M. The ideal factor)',
V. Noise. Welfare 'J,Vork, 1930, 2, 83-
85.
94. VERNON,H. M. ANO\VARNER, C. G. Ob-
jective and subjective tests for noise.
Personnel J., 1932, 11, 141-149.
9;, VITELEs, M.S. ANOSMITH, K. R. An ex-
perimental invesrigation of the effect
of change in atmosphcric conditions
and noise upon performance. Traus.
Amer. Soc. Heat. Vem. Engrs., 1946,
52 (1291), 167-182.
96. V ON P1r-;OFF.lmpairmenr of health by
slight no1se. Miincb. rned. Wschr.,
1932, 79, 2041-2042.