Guidance to investigate university students’ bodily responses and perceptual assessments in sound exposure experiments

Previous studies have shown that sound influences students both physiologically and perceptually. However, most of these studies focussed on the effects of sounds at group-level, ignoring individual differences. Therefore, we investigated which indicators can be used to identify differences in bodily responses and perceptual assessments of each individual when exposed to four different sounds. First, based on an audiometric test, the hearing acuity of 15 students (from five different profiles based on their acoustical preferences and needs) was measured. Then, two sound exposure experiments were conducted in the SenseLab: direct sound exposure using earbuds in a laboratory setting, and indirect sound exposure with speakers in a real room setting. During each experiment, the attention level (AL), mental relaxation level (MRL), heart rate (HR), and respiration rate (RR) were measured with wearable devices, and students made perceptual assessments of each condition. The percentage of change normalised the four bodily response measurements among students. Based on correlation analysis and t-tests, bodily responses, and perceptual assessments across experiments were compared, at group-level and individual-level. Six students, who suffered from mild hearing loss in low-frequency sounds, showed bodily responses such as increased HR during exposure to low-frequency sound conditions. Perceptual assessments of different sound types during both lab experiments substantiated the acoustical preferences of the students from the five profiles. Bodily responses showed no strong nor significant correlations with perceptual assessments during the direct sound exposure experiments. Differences in bodily responses and perceptual assessments between the two experiments and between group-level and individual-level were observed in AL. It is concluded that hearing acuity and type of sound (sound frequencies) are key indicators for identifying differences in bodily responses (such as HR and RR) and perceptual assessment. For future research, it is crucial to consider incorporating audiometric tests, bodily responses such as HR and RR, and perceptual assessments in this type of investigations. • Lab experiments confirmed students’ acoustical preferences from the field study. • Bodily responses did not correlate with perceptual assessments during direct sound exposure. • Heart rate (HR) and respiration rate (RR) were found to be useful indicators. • Students with mild low-frequency hearing loss had similar HR response as ‘normal’ students. • Audiometric tests were found to be essential for sound exposure experiments.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Indoor Environments
Published
2024-11-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indenv.2024.100066
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Noise Effects and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.36
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Guidance to investigate university students’ bodily responses and perceptual assessments in sound exposure experiments

AnneMarie Eijkelenboom, Alessandro D’Amico, Philomena M. Bluyssen, Amneh Hamida
3 citations
Indoor Environments
Noise Effects and Management
4.36
article

Guidance to investigate university students’ bodily responses and perceptual assessments in sound exposure experiments

AnneMarie Eijkelenboom, Alessandro D’Amico, Philomena M. Bluyssen, Amneh Hamida
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that sound influences students both physiologically and perceptually. However, most of these studies focussed on the effects of sounds at group-level, ignoring individual differences. Therefore, we investigated which indicators can be used to identify differences in bodily responses and perceptual assessments of each individual when exposed to four different sounds. First, based on an audiometric test, the hearing acuity of 15 students (from five different profiles based on their acoustical preferences and needs) was measured. Then, two sound exposure experiments were conducted in the SenseLab: direct sound exposure using earbuds in a laboratory setting, and indirect sound exposure with speakers in a real room setting. During each experiment, the attention level (AL), mental relaxation level (MRL), heart rate (HR), and respiration rate (RR) were measured with wearable devices, and students made perceptual assessments of each condition. The percentage of change normalised the four bodily response measurements among students. Based on correlation analysis and t-tests, bodily responses, and perceptual assessments across experiments were compared, at group-level and individual-level. Six students, who suffered from mild hearing loss in low-frequency sounds, showed bodily responses such as increased HR during exposure to low-frequency sound conditions. Perceptual assessments of different sound types during both lab experiments substantiated the acoustical preferences of the students from the five profiles. Bodily responses showed no strong nor significant correlations with perceptual assessments during the direct sound exposure experiments. Differences in bodily responses and perceptual assessments between the two experiments and between group-level and individual-level were observed in AL. It is concluded that hearing acuity and type of sound (sound frequencies) are key indicators for identifying differences in bodily responses (such as HR and RR) and perceptual assessment. For future research, it is crucial to consider incorporating audiometric tests, bodily responses such as HR and RR, and perceptual assessments in this type of investigations. • Lab experiments confirmed students’ acoustical preferences from the field study. • Bodily responses did not correlate with perceptual assessments during direct sound exposure. • Heart rate (HR) and respiration rate (RR) were found to be useful indicators. • Students with mild low-frequency hearing loss had similar HR response as ‘normal’ students. • Audiometric tests were found to be essential for sound exposure experiments.

Indoor EnvironmentsVol. 1(4)
Sapienza University of Rome (IT), Delft University of Technology (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Noise Effects and Management
4.36
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.