Understanding susceptibility to inattentional deafness in safety–critical environments

Introduction: Dynamic occupational environments, such as construction sites, present workers with frequent changes, some of which pose serious risk. Workers are expected to detect and respond to these changes using sensory cues, including auditory warnings intentionally designed to draw attention to hazardous conditions. However, these cues often compete with high cognitive load, which can result in missed warning sounds, a phenomenon known as inattentional deafness. This study examines susceptibility to inattentional deafness during a simulated construction task. Method: Data were collected from 136 participants, including 72 individuals and 64 participants who worked in 32 pairs. All participants completed a mechanical–electrical assembly in a controlled laboratory environment with continuous construction noise. Before the task, participants received a brief pre-job-style briefing instructing them to stop work and move to a designated safety zone upon hearing any sound that could indicate hazardous energy. During the task, participants were randomly assigned to hear either an Air Horn or a Hissing cue and to work individually or collaboratively. Each participant (or pair) received three successive bursts of the assigned cue at 81, 83, and 85 dB presented at random intervals. Results: Overall detection was 62%, with individuals detecting 58%, while pairs detected 71%. Sound type was the strongest determinant of noticeability, as the Air Horn was detected significantly more often than the Hissing cue. Increasing volume produced modest improvements in detection, and pair collaboration was beneficial, although the improvement did not fully align with probabilistic expectations of redundancy. Human factors such as fatigue, emotional state, and perceived task difficulty did not significantly predict detection. Conclusions and Practical Applications: These findings underscore the importance of highly distinguishable auditory warnings and system-level designs that account for the inherent limitations of human attention in safety–critical work environments.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Safety Research
Published
2026-08-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2026.08.011
Primary Topic
Safety Warnings and Signage
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Understanding susceptibility to inattentional deafness in safety–critical environments

Leaf Van Boven, Abayomi A. Oladejo, Siddharth Bhandari, Balaji Rajagopalan et al.
Journal of Safety Research
Safety Warnings and Signage
article

Understanding susceptibility to inattentional deafness in safety–critical environments

Leaf Van Boven, Abayomi A. Oladejo, Siddharth Bhandari, Balaji Rajagopalan, Matthew Hallowell, Matthew Morris, Lynneatte P. Quenin
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Dynamic occupational environments, such as construction sites, present workers with frequent changes, some of which pose serious risk. Workers are expected to detect and respond to these changes using sensory cues, including auditory warnings intentionally designed to draw attention to hazardous conditions. However, these cues often compete with high cognitive load, which can result in missed warning sounds, a phenomenon known as inattentional deafness. This study examines susceptibility to inattentional deafness during a simulated construction task. Method: Data were collected from 136 participants, including 72 individuals and 64 participants who worked in 32 pairs. All participants completed a mechanical–electrical assembly in a controlled laboratory environment with continuous construction noise. Before the task, participants received a brief pre-job-style briefing instructing them to stop work and move to a designated safety zone upon hearing any sound that could indicate hazardous energy. During the task, participants were randomly assigned to hear either an Air Horn or a Hissing cue and to work individually or collaboratively. Each participant (or pair) received three successive bursts of the assigned cue at 81, 83, and 85 dB presented at random intervals. Results: Overall detection was 62%, with individuals detecting 58%, while pairs detected 71%. Sound type was the strongest determinant of noticeability, as the Air Horn was detected significantly more often than the Hissing cue. Increasing volume produced modest improvements in detection, and pair collaboration was beneficial, although the improvement did not fully align with probabilistic expectations of redundancy. Human factors such as fatigue, emotional state, and perceived task difficulty did not significantly predict detection. Conclusions and Practical Applications: These findings underscore the importance of highly distinguishable auditory warnings and system-level designs that account for the inherent limitations of human attention in safety–critical work environments.

Journal of Safety ResearchVol. 98
University of Colorado Boulder (US), University of Colorado System (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Safety Warnings and Signage
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.