Air-conditioning and traffic noise change brain activity and feelings but not test scores
The Effects of Air-Conditioning and Road-Traffic Noise on Perceived, Cognitive, and EEG Responses in a University Classroom
Human-Computer Interaction
Summary
Noisy air-conditioning and traffic sounds in classrooms didn’t change how well students did on cognitive tasks, but the students felt more stressed and bothered by the noise. Their brain activity patterns, measured by EEG, also changed depending on how loud and unpleasant the noise was. This means students might be affected in ways not visible in their test performance alone. The authors suggest looking at both feelings and brain responses, not just test scores, to understand noise effects in classrooms better.
What this means in practice
- •For building designers: Design classroom environments by including EEG and subjective noise evaluations alongside performance measures to better assess occupant comfort under common noise sources.
- •For acoustic consultants: Use combined EEG and subjective ratings to distinguish between noise conditions that do not impact test scores but still affect occupants’ brain activity and stress perception.
Authors
Yuanzhi Su, Cynthia Hou
Abstract
Air-conditioning and road-traffic noise are common in classrooms, and their effects are often judged by cognitive performance. However, a sound that leaves performance unchanged may still be perceived differently or alter brain activity. In a within-participant design, this study tested whether perceived, cognitive, and EEG responses are consistent, and whether perceived and EEG responses distinguish conditions that performance does not. Sixteen students completed cognitive tasks in a university classroom under air-conditioning and road-traffic noise, each played back at 55, 60, and 65 dBA. Participants rated acoustic appraisal and perceived workload after each condition, and EEG was recorded during the tasks. The results show that cognitive performance did not differ significantly between conditions in any task. By contrast, noise was rated louder, less pleasant, and more arousing than a no-noise control, and all three ratings varied with sound level; perceived workload was also higher under noise. Task-period EEG power also showed significant differences between sources or levels in specific tasks and scalp regions. Within participants, relative EEG band power covaried mainly with loudness and pleasantness; louder and less pleasant ratings coincided with higher relative theta and lower relative gamma power. Associations with arousal and performance were rare, and none were found for workload. The three response types were thus only partly consistent, and perceived responses and EEG distinguished conditions that performance did not. Non-significant performance differences do not mean the conditions were equivalent for students. Assessments of air-conditioning and road-traffic noise in classrooms should therefore consider perceived responses alongside cognitive performance, with EEG providing complementary information on neural activity during tasks.