Quiet but not Quite: the Limitations of Active Noise Canceling Headphones in Open Offices

Today’s work environments are becoming increasingly dynamic, with open office spaces gaining popularity due to their cost-effective design and potential for facilitating collaboration and stronger teams. Despite these benefits, open office spaces are often noisy and distracting to employees, especially when they include high levels of irrelevant speech (IS). Literature has shown that the presence of speech unrelated to an individual’s current task has detrimental effects on performance and well-being (Colle & Welsh, 1976). Strategies to mitigate noise in open office workplaces, such as using headphones with active noise cancelation (ANC), have been implemented and are becoming recognized for their effectiveness in reducing general auditory distractions (Mueller et al., 2022). While ANC headphones work particularly well in filtering out lower sound frequencies and consistent noises such as those in an office, the technology has limitations in disrupting higher-frequency sounds like human speech (Beaman, 2005). This interaction results in an auditory experience where IS is clearer than before the implementation of ANC. The presence of IS has been shown to decrease an employee’s ability to write (Sorqvist et al., 2012), accurately recall information (Marsh et al., 2008), and comprehend what they are reading (Sorqvist et al., 2010). Since these tasks are essential to most office jobs, ANC headphones alone might not be enough to effectively mitigate the negative effects of IS. To address this limitation, this paper proposes the addition of a steady masking noise (i.e., white noise) while using ANC headphones. This method would allow the ANC to filter out IS and other complex high-frequency sounds by providing a uniform acoustic environment. This review aims to provide a comprehensive examination of the effectiveness of ANC headphones with and without masking technology in mitigating distractions caused by IS in open office environments. By synthesizing existing research, this review will highlight the theoretical and practical implications of ANC technology, including its potential benefits and limitations for enhancing employee performance, productivity, and well-being.References:Beaman, P. (2005). Irrelevant sound effects amongst younger and older adults: Objective findings and subjective insights. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17(2), 241-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440440000023 Colle, H. A., & Welsh, A. (1976). Acoustic masking in primary memory. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 15(1), 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(76)90003-7 Jahncke, H., Hygge, S., Halin, N., Green, A. M., & Dimberg, K. (2011). Open-plan office noise: Cognitive performance and restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 373-382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.07.002 Marsh, J. E., Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2008). Auditory distraction in semantic memory: A process-based approach. Journal of memory and language, 58(3), 682-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.05.002 Sörqvist, P., Halin, N., & Hygge, S. (2010). Individual differences in susceptibility to the effects of speech on reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 24(1), 67-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1543 Sörqvist, P., Nöstl, A., & Halin, N. (2012). Disruption of writing processes by the semanticity of background speech. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53(2), 97-102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00936.x