Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Experimental Methods
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Environmental Science
Pollution

Low frequency noise and annoyance

Profile image of Geoff LeventhallGeoff Leventhall

2004, Noise & health

Abstract

Low frequency noise, the frequency range from about 10 Hz to 200 Hz, has been recognised as a special environmental noise problem, particularly to sensitive people in their homes. Conventional methods of assessing annoyance, typically based on A-weighted equivalent level, are inadequate for low frequency noise and lead to incorrect decisions by regulatory authorities. There have been a large number of laboratory measurements of annoyance by low frequency noise, each with different spectra and levels, making comparisons difficult, but the main conclusions are that annoyance of low frequencies increases rapidly with level. Additionally the A-weighted level underestimates the effects of low frequency noises. There is a possibility of learned aversion to low frequency noise, leading to annoyance and stress which may receive unsympathetic treatment from regulatory authorities. In particular, problems of the Hum often remain unresolved. An approximate estimate is that about 2.5% of the po...

Related papers

Individual differences in noise annoyance and the uncomfortable loudness level
Russ Thomas

1982

Uncomfortable loudness levels were measured for two groups of subjects with either high or low scores on a noise annoyance questionnaire. The study was conducted in two stages. In the first stage scores of noise annoyance, general annoyance and locus of control were obtained from 122 respondents. Two groups of responders on the noise annoyance questionnaire attended the laboratory for the second stage involving a determination of the uncomfortable loudness level (ULL) by two methods (BCkCsy and analogue adjustment) and for two types of sound source (white noise and a 1 kHz tone). The key findings from the first stage were that (i) noise annoyance scores were not bimodal, showing no significant deviation from normality, (ii) females showed higher noise annoyance and (iii) both general annoyance and locus of control scales showed significant positive correlations with noise annoyance. Findings from the second stage showed that (i) BCkCsy determinations gave higher ULL's than those from the analogue adjustment method, (ii) based on annoyance scores, noise-annoyed subjects produced significantly higher ULL's than their less annoyed counterparts but only with the analogue determination with a 1 kHz tone, (iii) females produced markedly lower ULL's than males and (iv) deactivation, locus of control and extroversion were identified as mediating factors in the setting of the ULL. The results were further discussed in terms of methodological differences between this and earlier studies.

View PDFchevron_right
Revising ISO / TS 15666 – the noise annoyance standard
Lisa Lavia

2021

Noise annoyance is the most prevalent community response in populations exposed to environmental noise. In 1993 the ICBEN Community Response to Noise team started work formalising a standardised methodology for assessing noise annoyance, which resulted in reporting guidelines and recommendations for standard questions, which was later published by the International Standards Organization as a Technical Standard in 2003 (ISO/TS 15666: 2003). This Technical Standard is used to quantify exposure-response relationships between noise exposure and annoyance internationally. ISO/TS 15666:2003 has now been in operation for nearly two decades. This paper will report on the work of an international working group, as part of ISO TC43/SC1/WG62, tasked with revising and updating the Technical Standard. This paper will review use of the Technical Standard; discuss its revision; and highlight research needs and gaps that, if addressed, would help to further strengthen the methodology underlying th...

View PDFchevron_right
Appraisal of Significance of Acoustic Parameters in Contribution to Human Annoyance
Ivan Djurek

Applied Sciences

The goal of this paper was to describe a study which aimed to determine the significance of acoustic parameters in terms of some typical audio signals which occur in common urban environments. The focus when establishing the significance was set on their relevance with respect to the annoyance of the study participants. In order to carry out this experiment, an acoustic environment recording was made in which short distracting signals were inserted into the acoustic environment background sound. The recording obtained in the described way was then reproduced to listeners in laboratory conditions. Furthermore, the experiment was envisaged in a way that the participants had the option to adjust the following acoustic parameters: the amplitude, duration and the amplitude growth rates of the short signals. In order to prove the statistical significance of the obtained results from the experiment and the study premise, the chi-square test was applied. Thus, according to the results of th...

View PDFchevron_right
Observation on the Influence of Non-acoustical Factors on Perceived Noise Annoyance in a Field Experiment
Dick Botteldooren

The influence of non-acoustical factors on noise annoyance was studied in a unique field experiment. An innovative system was implemented for selecting representative participants from the Dutch population, as regards age, gender, level of education, noise sensitivity, reported anxiety, pre-exposure to train and road traffic noise, general quality of the living environment, and general health. It was grounded in 1500 participants' responses to a specifically constructed questionnaire, which contained items from a nation-wide Dutch and Eurobarometer surveys. Finally, 100 representative participants were selected. During the experiment, which took place in a realistic setting (living room of holiday cottage), groups of 5-7 participants were asked to be seated, relax, reading a magazine or newspaper and were served refreshments. During their stay, traffic noise was reproduced in an ecologically valid way via outdoor loudspeakers. Every ten minutes, the participants were asked to assess traffic noise annoyance. At the beginning and after at least 1 hour of the experiment, participants were also asked to scale the annoyance of a set of 7 reference sounds utilized for master scaling. In this field experiment, residual effect on noise annoyance was found from non-acoustical factors like noise sensitivity, environmental worry, and health status. Even after master scaling, it seems that inter-individual variation in traffic-noise annoyance remains which is dependent on certain important non-acoustical factors.

View PDFchevron_right
The effect on annoyance estimation of noise modeling procedures
Dick Botteldooren

2008

View PDFchevron_right
Annoyance Caused by Environmental Noise: Elements for Evidence-Based Noise Policies
Henk Miedema

Journal of Social Issues, 2007

Because effects of environmental noise do not require extremely high or long exposures, they occur, with different degrees of intensity, in a substantial part of the world population, especially in areas with a dense population and dense transportation networks. As a consequence, noise is a global issue that continues to detract from sustainable development. This article attempts to contribute to evidence-based noise policies by providing a review and systematization of noiseeffects modeling and findings. The results presented can be used in noise abatement policy to find the best practical ways of reducing noise-induced effects through the reduction of noise exposure. At present, it is possible to calculate noise maps showing the exposures to noise in residential areas. With the relationships between exposure and effects as presented here, these can be translated into estimates of the number of people affected. Estimates of effects can be made on the basis of existing noise exposures, but also on the basis of scenarios for future noise levels, so that the consequences of different scenarios can be explored and decisions with respect to noise abatement measures can be optimized. Such an evidence-based approach may be instrumental in reducing the worldwide burden of environmental noise.

View PDFchevron_right
Transportation Noise Annoyance—A Simulated-Environment Study for Road, Railway and Aircraft Noises, Part 1: Overall Annoyance
Selma Kurra

Journal of Sound and Vibration, 1999

This paper presents a simulated-environment study to determine the effects of noise level and source type on annoyance responses to different transportation noises. Noise sources used in the study were; road, railway and aircraft traffic whose noise levels varied between 30-55 dB(A) in L eq (indoor). Pass-by number for railway and aircraft traffic had values of 8, 12 and 16 per 30 min, while road traffic was continuous during this period. 64 subjects attending three different sessions of 30 min each, filled in a special questionnaire during the experiments. At each session, the subjects performed two different activities (reading and listening) and thus in addition to the overall annoyance, the activity disturbance was investigated. The total of 192 answers were analyzed as individual values, group average scores and highly annoyed subjects (HA%). The overall annoyance in both group average scores (giving the best correlation with noise level) and individual scores, are presented in this first of the two companion papers. The noise and annoyance relationships determined for each source revealed very strong dependence on noise levels and the regression lines displayed a steeper increase in comparison with the previous results. The significance of the source-type effect on annoyance was found at the levels of 0•03 and 0•02 for the overall annoyance question (P Q 0•05). However since this effect was significant only for half of the different questions asked, it can be said that the source type is not a highly deterministic factor while the respondents are concentrating on daily work at home. Railway noise appeared to be the most prominent noise source in the overall annoyance, especially at moderate and low noise levels. The results supported the view that L eq = 45 dB(A) is an indoor noise limit indicating a crossover between the source-specific annoyance lines. The activity disturbance will be elaborated in Part 2.

View PDFchevron_right
Complaints of infrasound and low-frequency noise studied with questionnaires
Morten Lydolf

2000

A survey of complaints about infrasound and low frequency noise has been carried out. 167 persons reported about their annoyance in a questionnaire. Their verbal reports often describe the sound as deep and humming or rumbling, like coming from a distant idling engine of a truck or pump. Nearly all respondents report of a sensory perception from the sound. In general they report that they perceive it with their ears, but many mention also a perception of vibrations, either in their body or of external objects. The sound disturbs and irritates during most activities, and many consider its mere presence as a torment to them. Many of the respondents report on secondary annoyance in terms of various kinds of unpleasantness (e.g. insomnia, headaches, palpitation), which they associate with the sound mainly because it occurs at the same places as the sound. In a majority of the cases, only a single or few persons can hear the sound, but there are also examples where it is claimed to be audible to everybody. Typically, measurements have shown that existing limits (and hearing thresholds) are not exceeded. The investigation leaves the key question: Is the annoyance induced by an external sound or not, and if it is, which frequencies and levels are then involved. The feasibility of a study of this is supported by the results.

View PDFchevron_right
Annoyance and Community Noise: Psychophysical Model of Dose – Response Relationships
Anna Preis

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1997

View PDFchevron_right
Noise Annoyance – What does it mean?
Paul Hooper

Proceedings of the ICA congress, 2019

View PDFchevron_right

References (74)

  1. Adam, R. (1999): Subjective response to low frequency noise, PhD, South Bank University, London. Back to cited text no. 1
  2. Andresen, J., and Moller, H. (1984): Equal annoyance contours for low frequency noise. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 3, 1-9. Back to cited text no. 2
  3. Barbenza, C. M., Bryan, M. E., and Tempest, W. (1970): Individual loudness functions. J Sound Vibration 11, 399410. Back to cited text no. 3
  4. Belojevic, G., and Jokovljevic, B. (2001): Factors influencing subjective noise sensitivity in an urban population. Noise and Health 4, 17-24. Back to cited text no. 4
  5. Benton, S. (1997): Low frequency noise and the impact upon an individuals quality of life: Case study reports. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 16, 203-208. Back to cited text no. 5
  6. Benton, S., and Leventhall, H. G. (1982): The effect of auditory processing on the development of low level low frequency noise criteria. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 1, 97 108. Back to cited text no. 6
  7. Benton, S., and Leventhall, H. G. (1994): The role of "background stressors" in the formation of annoyance and stress responses. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 13, 95-102. Back to cited text no. 7
  8. Beranek, L. L., Blazier, W. E., and Figwer, J. J. (1971): Preferred Noise Criterion Curves (PNC) and their application to rooms. J Acoust Soc Am 50, 1223-1228. Back to cited text no. 8
  9. Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., Schwela, D., and Goh, K.-T. (2000): Guidlines for Community Noise. World Health Organisation. Back to cited text no. 9
  10. Blazier, W. E. (1981): Revised noise criteria for application in the acoustic design of and rating of HVAC systems. Noise Control Eng 16, 64-73. Back to cited text no. 10
  11. Blazier, W. E. (1997): RC Mark II: A refined procedure for rating noise of heating ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in buildings. Noise Control Eng 45, 243250. Back to cited text no. 11
  12. Bradley, J. S. (1994): Annoyance caused by constant amplitude and amplitude modulated sounds containing rumble. Noise Control Eng 42, 203-208. Back to cited text no. 12
  13. Broner, N. (1979): Low frequency noise annoyance. PhD Chelsea College, University of London. Back to cited text no. 13
  14. Broner, N., and Leventhall, H. G. (1978): Individual annoyance functions. Acoustics Letters 2, 22-25. Back to cited text no. 14
  15. Broner, N., and Leventhall, H. G. (1983): Low frequency noise annoyance assessment by Low Frequency Noise Rating (LFNR) Curves. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 2, 20-28. Back to cited text no. 15
  16. Broner, N., and Leventhall, H. G. (1984): The annoyance, loudness and unacceptability of lower level low frequency noise. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 3, 154-166. Back to cited text no. 16
  17. Broner, N., and Leventhall, H. G. (1985): Annoyance and unacceptability of higher level low frequency noise. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 4, 1-11. Back to cited text no. 17
  18. Bryan, M. E. (1976): Low frequency noise annoyance. In: Infrasound and Low Frequency Vibration. Editor: W Tempest. Academic Press. Back to cited text no. 18
  19. Bryan, M. E., and Tempest, W. (1973): Are our noise laws adequate. Applied Acoustics 6, 219-233. Back to cited text no. 19
  20. Challis, L. A., and Challis, A. M. (1978): Low frequency noise problems from gas turbine power stations. Proc Internoise 78, pp. 475-480. Back to cited text no. 20
  21. Cocchi, A., Fausti, P., and Piva, S. (1992): Experimental characteristics of the low frequency noise annoyance arising from industrial plants. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 11, 124-132. Back to cited text no. 21
  22. DIN:45680 (1997): Measurement and evaluation of lowfrequency environmental noise. Back to cited text no. 22
  23. Fields, J. M. (1993): Effect of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance in residential areas. J Acoust Soc Am 93, 2753-2763. Back to cited text no. 23
  24. Goldstein, M. (1994): Low-frequency components in complex noise and their perceived loudness and annoyance. National Institute of Occupational Health (Arbetsmiljoinstitutet). Solna. Back to cited text no. 24
  25. Goldstein, M., and Kjellberg, A. (1985): Annoyance and low frequency noise with different slopes of the frequency spectrum. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 4, 43-51. Back to cited text no. 25
  26. Grime, S. (2000): Against a National Noise Strategy. Environmetal Health Journal 108. Back to cited text no. 26
  27. Guski (1999): Personal and social variables as codeterminants of noise annoyance. Noise and Health 1, 45-56. Back to cited text no. 27
  28. Guski, R., Felscher-Suhr, U., and Scheumer, R. (1999): The concept of noise annoyance: How international experts see it. J Sound Vibration 223, 513-527. Back to cited text no. 28
  29. Hatfield, J., Job, R., Carter, N., Peploe, P., Taylor, R., and Morrell, S. (2001): The influence of psychological factors on self-reported physiological effects of noise. Noise and Health 3, 1-13. Back to cited text no. 29
  30. Holmberg, K., Landstrom, U., and Kjellberg, A. (1997): Low frequency noise level variations and annoyance in working environments. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 16, 8188. Back to cited text no. 30
  31. Holmberg, K., Landstrom, U., and Kjellberg, A. (1993): Effects of ventilation noise due to frequency characterisitics and sound level. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 12, 115-122. Back to cited text no. 31
  32. Holmberg, K., Landstrom, U., Soderberg, L., and Kjellberg, A. (1996): Hygienic assessment of low frequency noise annoyance in working environments. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 15, 7-16. Back to cited text no. 32
  33. Inukai, Y., Nakamura, N., and Taya, H. (2000): Unpleasantness and acceptable limits of low frequency sound. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 19. Back to cited text no. 33
  34. Inukai, Y., Taua, H., Utsugi, A., and Nagamur, N. (1990): A new evaluation method for low frequency noise. Proc Internoise 90, 1441. Back to cited text no. 34
  35. ISO532 (1975): Method for calculating loudness level. Back to cited text no. 35
  36. ISO:226 (1987): Normal equal-loudness level contours. Back to cited text no. 36
  37. Jakobsen, J. (2001): Danish guidlines on environmental low frequency noise, infrasound and vibration. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn & Active Control 20, 141-148. Back to cited text no. 37
  38. Kalveram, K. T. (2000): How acoustical noise can cause physiological and psychological reactions. 5th Int Symp Transport Noise and Vibration. June 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia. Back to cited text no. 38
  39. Kalveram, K. T., Dasow, J., and Vogt, J. (1999): How information about the source influences noise annoyance. ASA/EAA/DAGA Meeting March 1999, Berlin (CDROM). Back to cited text no. 39
  40. Kitamura, T., and Yamada, S. (2002): Psychological analysis of sufferers of low frequency noise and relation between brain structure and psychological response. Proc 10th International Meeting Low Frequency Noise and Vibration and its Control. York, UK Sept 2002(Editor: H G Leventhall). Back to cited text no. 40
  41. Kjellberg, A., and Goldstein, M. (1985): Loudness assessment of band noise of varying bandwidth and spectral shape. An evaluation of various frequency weighting networks. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 4, 12-26. Back to cited text no. 41
  42. Kjellberg, A., Goldstein, M., and Gamberale, F. (1984): An assessment of dB(A) for predicting loudness and annoyance of noise containing low frequency components. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 3, 10-16. Back to cited text no. 42
  43. Kjellberg, A., Tesarz, M., Holberg, K., and Landstrom, U. (1997): Evaluation of frequency-weighted sound level measurements for prediction of low-frequency noise annoyance. Environment International 23, 519-527. Back to cited text no. 43
  44. Landstrom, U., Kjellberg, A., and Bystrom, M. (1993): Acceptable levels of sounds with different spectral characteristics during the performance of a simple and a complex non-auditory task. J Sound Vibration 160, 533542. Back to cited text no. 44
  45. Landstrom, U., Kjellberg, A., Soderberg, L., and Nordstrom, B. (1994): Measures against ventilation noise: Which tone frequencies are least and most annoying. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 13, 81-88. Back to cited text no. 45
  46. Leventhall, H. G. (2003): A review of published research on low frequency noise and its effects. Prepared for Defra. Back to cited text no. 46
  47. Lundin, A., and Ahman, M. (1998): Case report: Is low frequency noise from refrigerators in a multi-family house a cause of diffuse disorders? Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 17, 65-70. Back to cited text no. 47
  48. Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G., Johnsrude, I. S., Good, C. D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S. J., and Frith, C. D. (2000): Navigation related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proc Nat Acad Sci 97, 4398 -4403. Back to cited text no. 48
  49. Manley, D. M. J. P., Styles, P., and Scott, J. (2002): Perceptions of the public of low frequency noise. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 21, 2002. Back to cited text no. 49
  50. Mirowska, M. (1998): An investigation and assessment of low frequency noise in dwellings. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 17, 119-126. Back to cited text no. 50
  51. Mirowska, M. (2002): Problems of measurement and evaluation of low frequency noise in residential buildings in the light of recommendations and the new European standards. 10th International Meeting Low Frequency Noise and VIbration and its Control. York UK (Editor: H G Leventhall), 261-268. Back to cited text no. 51
  52. Moller, H. (1987): Annoyance of audible infrasound. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 6, 1-17. Back to cited text no. 52
  53. Mortensen, F. R., and Poulsen, T. (2001): Annoyance of low frequency noise and traffic noise. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 20, 193-196. Back to cited text no. 53
  54. N S G (1999): NSG-Richtlijn Laagfrequent Geluid. Back to cited text no. 54
  55. Nakamura, N., and Inukai, Y. (1998): Proposal of models which indicate unpleasantness of low fequency noise using exploratory factor analysis and structural covariance analysis. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 17, 127-132. Back to cited text no. 55
  56. Pantev, C., Oostenveld, R., A, E., Ross, B., Roberts, L. E., and Hoke, M. (1998): Increased auditory cortical response in musicians. Nature April 23 392 (6678), 811-814. Back to cited text no. 56
  57. Persson, K., and Bjorkman, M. (1988): Annoyance due to low frequency noise and the use of the dB(A) scale. J Sound Vibration 127, 491-497. Back to cited text no. 57
  58. Persson, K., Bjorkman, M., and Rylander, R. (1985): An experimental evaluation of annoyance due to low frequency noise. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 4, 145-153. Back to cited text no. 58
  59. Persson, K., Bjorkman, M., and Rylander, R. (1990): Loudness, annoyance and the dBA in evaluating low frequency sounds. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 9, 32-45. Back to cited text no. 59
  60. Persson-Waye, K. (1985): An experimental evaluation of annoyance due to low frequency noise. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 4, 145-153. Back to cited text no. 60
  61. Poulsen, T. (2002): Laboratory determination of annoyance of low frequency noise. 10th International Meeting Low Frequency Noise and VIbration and its Control. York UK (Editor: H G Leventhall), 19-26, pp. 1928. Back to cited text no. 61
  62. Poulsen, T., and Mortensen, F. R. (2002): Laboratory evaluation of annoyance of low frequency noise. Working Report No.1 2002 Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Back to cited text no. 62
  63. Schnupp, J. W. H., and Kacelnick, O. (2002): Cortical plasticity: Learning from cortical reorganisation. Current Biology 12, 144-146. Back to cited text no. 63
  64. Socialstyrelsen-Sweden (1996): SOSFS 1996:7/E Indoor Noise and High Sound Levels. Back to cited text no. 64
  65. Stallen, P. (1999): A theoretical framework for environmental noise annoyance. Noise and Health 1, 6980. Back to cited text no. 65
  66. Tesarz, M., Kjellberg, A., Landstrom, U., and Holmberg, K. (1997): Subjective response patterns related to low frequency noise. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 16, 145-150. Back to cited text no. 66
  67. van den Berg, G. P. (2001): Tinnitus as a cause of low frequency noise complaints. Proc Internoise 2001, den Hague. Back to cited text no. 67
  68. van den Berg, G. P., and Passchier-Vermeer, W. (1999a): Assessment of low frequency noise complaints. Proc Internoise'99, Fort Lauderdale. Back to cited text no. 68
  69. Vasudevan, R. N., and Gordon, C. G. (1977): Experimental study of annoyance due to low frequency environmental noise. Applied Acoustics 10, 57-69. Back to cited text no. 69
  70. Vasudevan, R. N., and Leventhall, H. G. (1982): A study of annoyance due to low frequency noise in the home. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 2, 157-164. Back to cited text no. 70
  71. Vercammen, M. L. S. (1989): Setting limits for low frequency noise. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 8, 105-109. Back to cited text no. 71
  72. Vercammen, M. L. S. (1992): Low frequency noise limits. Jnl Low Freq Noise Vibn 11, 7-13. Back to cited text no. 72
  73. Yamada, S. (1980): Hearing of low frequency sound and influence on the body. Conference on Low Frequency Noise and Hearing, Aalborg, Denmark, 95-102, (Editors: H Moller and P Rubak). Back to cited text no. 73
  74. Zwicker, E., and Fastl, H. (1999): Psycho-acoustics. Facts and Models. Springer. Back to cited text no. 74

Related papers

An Experimental Evaluation of Annoyance Due to Low Frequency Noise
Kerstin Persson Waye

Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control, 1985

View PDFchevron_right
Assessment of annoyance from low frequency and broadband noises
Małgorzata Waszkowska

International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health, 2003

It has been shown that low frequency noise (LFN), defined as broadband noise with dominant content of low frequencies (10-250 Hz), may be annoying to exposed subjects. The aim of the study was to compare the degree of annoyance caused by LFN with that caused by broadband noise (BBN) without dominant low frequency components at similar A-weighted sound pressure levels. Subjects included in the study were 145 male employees of the control rooms. They were exposed to noise through headphones at gradually increasing dB A-weighted sound pressure levels within the range of 62-84 dB. Annoyance rating was based on a 100-score graphical scale. LFN was rated as significantly more annoying than BBN at the comparable A-weighted sound pressure levels. The annoyance assessment of either noise did not depend on age, length of employment or the level of exposure to noise at a current workplace. LFN represents a higher risk of influencing human well-being than regular BBN and should be considered in...

View PDFchevron_right
Predicting Acceptable Noise Levels from the Annoyance and Noise Sensitivity
Kenji Furihata

Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 2010

In ar ecent paper [Acta Acustica united with Acustica 93 (2007)7 3-83] [1], an experimental noise annoyance meter wasproposed for estimating acceptable noise levels, L AeqT .Inthis experiment, the subjects were able to relate the value of L AeqT to the differences between the seven-point annoyance scale scores displayed. Therefore, theydirectly gave the value of L AeqT for their acceptable threshold. This study investigated whether each acceptable L AeqT levelcan be predicted from the annoyance and noise sensitivity.First, multiple regression models for each outdoor noise source were constructed to predict the annoyance from L AeqT and the noise sensitivity based on the data collected in and around the city of Nagano. The regression models were used to determine whether each outdoor noise waso verorunder the acceptable threshold, which wasdefined as the midpoint between the scores "a little annoying" and "somewhat annoying."T he correlation between the experimental results using a separate sample of residents from other prefectural capital cities in Japan and the predictions by the regression models was0 .703. Also, the discriminant models were used to classify cases by their values of ac ategorical dependent, where correlation with the proposed models was0 .837, indicating that the discriminant models are valid.

View PDFchevron_right
A study for rating fluctuating noise on the basis of the additivity of annoyance
Kozo Hiramatsu

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1978

other sources. Included are comments on community noise impact on hearing, human response to transportation noise, and speech interference and community annoyance. 8:20 V2. Noise criteria for outdoor living.

View PDFchevron_right
Effects of Different Spectral Shapes and Amplitude Modulation of Broadband Noise on Annoyance Reactions in a Controlled Listening Experiment
Reto Pieren

International journal of environmental research and public health, 2018

Environmental noise from transportation or industrial infrastructure typically has a broad frequency range. Different sources may have disparate acoustical characteristics, which may in turn affect noise annoyance. However, knowledge of the relative contribution of the different acoustical characteristics of broadband noise to annoyance is still scarce. In this study, the subjectively perceived short-term (acute) annoyance reactions to different broadband sounds (namely, realistic outdoor wind turbine and artificial, generic sounds) at 40 dBA were investigated in a controlled laboratory listening experiment. Combined with the factorial design of the experiment, the sounds allowed for separation of the effects of three acoustical characteristics on annoyance, namely, spectral shape, depth of periodic amplitude modulation (AM), and occurrence (or absence) of random AM. Fifty-two participants rated their annoyance with the sounds. Annoyance increased with increasing energy content in t...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Computer Science
  • Environmental Pollution
  • Medicine
  • Public health systems and servic...
  • Auditory Threshold
  • Low Frequency Noise
  • Radio Waves
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved