4.5 Article

Combined effects of acoustic and visual distraction on cognitive performance and well-being

Journal

APPLIED ERGONOMICS
Volume 43, Issue 2, Pages 424-434

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2011.06.017

Keywords

Acoustic distraction; Visual distraction; Office noise; Performance; Well-being

Funding

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research: BMBF [17 46 B 05]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Information work is usually performed in offices and influenced by the combined effects of acoustics, room climate, lighting and air quality. However, the principal part of literature solely focuses on the individual effects of physical parameters. This study (n = 32) investigates the combined effects of acoustic and visual distraction with regard to cognitive performance and well-being. Therefore low level background speech (40 dB(A)) of good or poor intelligibility was combined with either static or dynamic lighting. Experimental testing lasted for approx. 7 h for each participant and was conducted in mock-up offices. No interaction effects of background speech and lighting conditions with regard to cognitive performance were found. However, the results prove that even low level background speech of high intelligibility significantly impairs short-term memory, reasoning ability and well-being. But no effect of background speech on text comprehension and sustained attention was found. Visual distraction due to dynamic lighting caused significant complaints but did not impair performance. An interaction effect of background speech and lighting conditions was found with regard to perceived performance during task processing. Test persons only felt to perform better, if background speech of low intelligibility was combined with static lighting. It is shown that the effects on cognitive performance and well-being must be considered separately since these effects are rarely consistent. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available