2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2017.05.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Auditory distraction in open-plan office environments: The effect of multi-talker acoustics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

5
31
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
(110 reference statements)
5
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Aliabadi et al, 2016) and lately noise-cancelling technologies (e.g. Yadav et al, 2017), but ignores how office use (coping) can influence productivity. To reduce the negative effects of noise, individuals can cope with noise by various types of coping strategies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Aliabadi et al, 2016) and lately noise-cancelling technologies (e.g. Yadav et al, 2017), but ignores how office use (coping) can influence productivity. To reduce the negative effects of noise, individuals can cope with noise by various types of coping strategies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Beginning with Taylor (1911), early theoretical approaches to the physical work environment have taken a practical view, examining instrumental features such as layout, privacy, lighting or spatial efficiency (Davis, 1984;Elsbach & Pratt, 2007. An extensive stream of research on disparate dimensions of the physical environment followed with a focus on spatial layout (Backhouse and Drew, 1992;Brennan et al, 2002;Zalesney and Farace, 1987), building materials (McCoy and Evans, 2002), decorations (Bringslimark et al, 2009), noise (Yadav, Kim, Cabrera, and de Dear, 2017;Zaglauer, Drotleff, and Lieble, 2017), lighting (Zhong and House, 2012) and opportunities for personalization (Elsbach, 2004). Gagliardi (1990) notes that this focus on features and layouts that could be replicated across contexts meant that the reactions of the employee to the physical work environment, and their experience at work took a back seat until researchers began to take a more subjective view based on employees' experiences of work.…”
Section: Framework For the Physical Environment At Homementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Beranek, 1957 andBeranek, 1960) (Banbury & Berry, 2005;Kaarlela-Tuomaala et al, 2009) to suggest that speech distraction and speech privacy are the key determinants of occupants' overall satisfaction with indoor environments, particularly in open-plan offices (Kim & de Dear, 2013). Current standards do not adequately address speech stimuli due to various assumptions and simplifications that deviate from real-world talker-listener office interactions (Haapakangas et al, 2017, Yadav et al, 2017. If speech distraction and privacy are to be considered in evaluations of indoor acoustic quality, then longitudinal sampling procedures during occupied hours will be necessary.…”
Section: Acousticsmentioning
confidence: 99%