See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/15833812

Effect of noise on performance on embedded figure tasks

Article  in  Journal of Applied Psychology · May 1980

DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.65.2.246 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

18 162

2 authors, including:

Andrew P Smith
Cardiff University
547 PUBLICATIONS   12,034 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Feasibility study of a behavioural intervention to reduce fatigue in women undergoing radiotherapy for curable breast cancer View
project

Developing and validating an alternative online objective mobile indicator of fatigue View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew P Smith on 13 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Applied Psychology
1980, Vol. 65, No. 2, 246-248

Effects of Noise on Performance on Embedded Figures Tasks

Andrew P. Smith and Donald E. Broadbent
University of Oxford, Oxford, England

One explanation of certain noise effects is in terms of increased attentional

selectivity. However, the generality of certain results that provide the basis
for this view has been questioned by a number of recent studies. The
two experiments reported here also suggest that noise will not always influence
performance on tasks involving salient and irrelevant cues. In the first
experiment, 20 female subjects were tested individually on an embedded
figures task in both noise (85 dB [C]) and quiet (55 dB 1C]). Half of the subjects
had the noise treatments in the order quiet-noise and half in the order noise-
quiet. In the second experiment, 32 female subjects were given a more difficult
embedded figures task. Neither experiment showed any effect of noise on
performance.

Broadbent (1971) has suggested that one of the
effects of noise is an increase in the probability
of sampling from dominant sources. This has
been shown to be the case in dual-task situa-
tions (Hockey, 1970a, 1970b) and in cases in
which conflicting relevant and irrelevant stimuli
are involved (e.g., the Stroop Color-Word Inter-
ference Test). However, the attention-deploy-
ment view of noise effects has not been
supported by some recent results. Forster and
Grierson (1978) and Loeb and Jones (1978)
found no effect, or the opposite effect to
Hockey's, when using a tracking and monitoring
task. The existing literature on the effects of
noise on the Stroop task is also conflicting.
Some authors have reported that performance on
the interference task is better in noise (e.g.,
Houston, 1969; Houston & Jones, 1967),
whereas others have found the opposite effect
(e.g., Hartley & Adams, 1974, Experiment 1).
Indeed, the effects probably depend on the rela-
tive salience of the words and colors rather
than on a change in interference per se. (See
Broadbent, Note 1, for a further discussion of
this point.)
The experiments described in this article were
designed to investigate the effects of noise on
another task involving relevant and irrelevant
cues—the embedded figures task. Callaway
The first author was supported by the British
Social Science Research Council; the second author
is employed by the Medical Research Council.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Donald E.
Broadbent, Department of Experimental Psychology,
University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford
OX1 3UD, England.
Copyright 1980 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0021-9010/80/6502-0246S00.75
(1959) found that performance was better on an
embedded figures task following administration
of the stimulant drugs amobarbital and metham-
phetamine. Oilman (1964) has also reported that
white noise increases field independence. How-
ever, he used a rod and frame test as a
measure of field independence, and it has been
shown that there is only a moderate correla-
tion of .4-.6 between this and certain embedded
figures tasks (Arbuthnot, 1972). The details of
the level of noise are not clear from his
report, and as noise was always given second,
it is not clear whether the reported effect is
solely due to noise or, to some extent, to
practice.
It is desirable to carry out further studies on
the effects of noise on embedded figures tasks.
The following experiments used different ver-
sions of embedded figures tasks to see whether
noise would aid performance on them and to
see whether any noise effects were general or
dependent on certain features of the tasks.
Experiment 1
Method
Each subject carried out an embedded figures
task in noise and quiet conditions. Half of the
subjects had the noise treatments in the order
noise-quiet and half in the order quiet-noise.
The subjects were tested in groups of 5, and the
noise and quiet conditions were 1 week apart.
The subjects were 20 female members of the
Oxford Subject Panel, and they were paid for
participating in the experiment. The average
age of the subjects was 34.5 years (SD = 7.5
years; range = 20-46 years).

246
 SHORT NOTES
Continuous noise was used with equal levels
per octave (±1 dB) from 125-4000 Hz. The
sound level in the noise condition was 85 dB (C).
In the quiet condition, the sound level was
55 dB (C).
The embedded figures task was based on
figures shown in the University of Toronto
Health Sciences Hidden Figures Test. However,
this was modified in the following way. At the
top of each sheet of paper were 5 simple figures
labelled A-E. Below these were a series of
more complex figures. Above each complex
figure was a letter denoting which simple
figure was present in it. There were 32 test
figures on the sheet. On one session subjects
did the odd-numbered figures and on another
the even-numbered figures. Half of the subjects
did the figures in the order odd-even and
half in the order even-odd. A pilot study
had suggested that the two sets of figures
were of comparable difficulty.
The subjects were given the following written
instructions:
In this task you have to find a simple figure
in a more complex pattern. The 5 simple figures are
labelled A-E. The actual simple figure that is present
in a particular complex figure is written above the
figure. Your task is to find the simple figure and
shade it in. There is only one simple figure in each
pattern and this figure will always be in the right
side up and exactly the same size as one of the
simple figures. If you get stuck on a particular
figure go on to the next. Turn over the page when
you have completed one side. If you have any
questions about the task please ask me.
The subjects were then shown a completed
sample of what they had to do. They were then
given 8 minutes to complete as many figures
as possible (maximum = 16).
Results
The mean number of figures completed was
8.40 in noise and 8.45 in quiet. An analysis of
variance revealed that this difference failed to
reach significance (F < 1). As an index of the
power of the experiment, a difference of 1.313
would have been significant. Indeed, the only
influence on performance was practice, F(l, 18)
= 13.05, p = .002. On the second session 9.55
figures were detected and on the first only 7.30.
The noise did not interact with this practice
effect. Subjects completed more even numbered
figures than odd (8.7 vs. 8.15), but this differ-
ence was not significant. Individual differences
in ability of the subjects to do the task were
large compared with differences between condi-
tions. The scores ranged from 1 to 16, SD
247
= 6.005. However, when the subjects were
divided into high and low scorers, there was
still no effect of noise on either group. A
negative correlation was found between age and
number of embedded figures completed (tau
= -0.37), but there was no significant correla-
tion between age and the noise effect for either
the quiet-noise group of subjects or the
noise-quiet group of subjects.
Experiment 2
Method
This experiment was similar to the previous
one except that the embedded figures task was
modified. In this version of the task, the sub-
jects were shown the simple and complex
figures but were not told which of the simple
figures was present in each complex figure. The
only other differences were that the subjects
were tested individually and that the task lasted
for 10 minutes.
The subjects were 32 female members of the
Oxford Subject Panel. The average age of the
subjects was 33.8 years (SD = 6.7 years;
range = 21-46 years).
Results
This form of the embedded figures task was
much more difficult than the previous one. The
mean number of figures completed in noise was
4.00 and in quiet 3,84. However, the noise
effect failed to reach statistical significance
(F < 1). Again, as a measure of the power of
the experiment, a difference of .384 would have
been significant; the standard deviation of in-
dividual differences in ability was 4.0079. The
only effect to reach significance was the prac-
tice effect, F( 1,30) = 9.23,p = .005,3.31 figures
being detected on the first run and 4.53 on the
second. The noise did not interact with the size
of the practice effect. In this experiment there
was a zero correlation between age and the
number of figures completed.
Discussion
The studies reported in this article support
the growing literature that argues against ex-
planation of noise effects in terms of changes in
cue utilization to favor salient cues or a reduc-
tion in interference produced by a bias in
attention always toward the more salient fea-
ture. Conceivably one could argue that the ab-
sence of an effect is due to the relatively
low level of noise used or to the short dura-
tion of the noise exposure. However, effects of
248 SHORT NOTES
noise have been found with levels as low as 85 dB.
(See Jones, Smith, & Broadbent, 1979; Smith,
Note 2). Effects have also been found at very
short exposure durations, and some of these
have been explained in terms of attentional
selectivity (e.g., Hockey & Hamilton, 1970).
Thus a simplistic theory of noise effects, hold-
ing that selectivity of attention always changes
in the same way in noise, should predict an
effect in this study. Yet no effect was found.
In practical situations, the main lesson of
this study is to urge caution. One cannot as-
sume that the effects of noise on a task of
selecting relevant from irrelevant information
will be beneficial; it depends on the particular
task.
Reference Notes
1. Broadbent, D. E. Low levels of noise and the
naming of colors. Paper presented at the Third
International Congress on Noise as a Public
Health Problem, Freiburg, West Germany, 1978.
2. Smith, A. P. Low levels of noise and per-
formance. Paper presented at the Third Interna-
tional Congress on Noise as a Public Health
Problem, Freiburg, West Germany, 1978.
References
Arbuthnot, J. Cautionary note on the measurement of
field independence. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
1972,55,479-488.
Broadbent, D. E. Decision and stress. London: Aca-
demic Press, 1971.
View publication stats
Callaway, E. The influence of amobarbital (amylo-
barbitone) and methamphetamine on the focus of
attention. Journal of Mental Science, 1959, 105,
382-392.
Forster, P. M., & Grierson, A. Noise and atten-
tion selectivity: A reproducible phenomenon? British
Journal of Psychology, 1978, 69, 489-498.
Hartley, L. R., & Adams, J. Effects of noise on
the Stroop test. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology, 1974, 102, 62-66.
Hockey, G. R. J. Effect of loud noise on atten-
tional selectivity. Quarterly Journal of Experimen-
tal Psychology, 1970, 22, 28-36. (a)
Hockey, G. R. J. Signal probability and spatial
location as possible bases for increased selec-
tivity in noise. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1970, 22, 37-42. (b)
Hockey, G. R. J., & Hamilton, P. Arousal and
information selection in short-term memory. Nature
(London), 1970,226, 866-867.
Houston, B. K. Noise, task difficulty, and Stroop
color-word performance. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1969, 82, 403-404.
Houston, B. K., & Jones, T. M. Distraction and
Stroop color-word performance. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology, 1967, 74, 54-56.
Jones, D. M., Smith, A. P., & Broadbent, D. E.
Effects of moderate intensity noise on the Bakan
vigilance task. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1979, 64, 627-634.
Loeb, M., & Jones, P. D. Noise exposure, moni-
toring, and tracking performance as a function of
signal bias and task priority. Ergonomics, 1978,
21, 265-277.
Oilman, P. K. Field dependence and arousal.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1964, 19, 441.
Received February 22, 1979 •