British Journal of Psychology (1991), 82, 313-324 Printed in Great Britain 313, © 1991 The British Psychological Society Noise and aspects of attention Andrew P. Smith* Health Prychology Research Unit, Scbool of Psycbology, University of Wales College of Cardiff, PO Box 901, Cardiff, CF1 3YG, UK ‘The paper reviews research on the effects of noise on attention. An experimental study of noise and selective attention is then described. The results showed that noise has different effects on tasks requiring focused attention and categoric search, with noise impairing performance on the focused attention task and having little «effect on the search task. This effect of noise did not interact with time of day, level of anxiety, ot cognitive failure. Noise did not influence the size of the Eriksen effect, although this did change at different times of day. Neither noise nor any of the other factors had a significant effect on the place repetition effect. For over 40 years psychologists have been interested in the effects of noise on different aspects of attention. This paper briefly reviews research on this topic and reports an experimental study of the effects of noise on selective attention. Both parts of the paper show that a major figure in this area has been Donald Broadbent, and it is hoped that the present article reflects his contribution to our knowledge of the effects of noise on attention. ‘Noise and attention: A brief review The aim of this review is to provide a brief account of our current knowledge of the effects of noise on attention. There have been many detailed accounts of this (e.g. Broadbent, 1958, 1971, 1979, 1981, 1983; Jones, 1984, 1990; Smith, 19892; Smith & Broadbent, in press) and the reader is referred to these for more detailed coverage of the points summarized here. Noise and sustained attention Many of the older studies of noise and attention used very loud noise (often over 100 dB), and such levels should be eliminated because of the risk to hearing. Results from these studies are still useful in that similar results may be obtained using longer exposutes of moderate intensity noise (see Smith & Miles, 1985). The development of mote sensitive performance tests has also meant that we can now detect effects at levels which are much lower than those used in earlier studies (see Smith, 1985). It is of some value, therefore, to summarize the general conclusions which have emerged from studies of noise levels of 95dB or over. The types of sustained attention task used in these experiments were those where the subject had to detect an infrequent event, such as the movement of a pointer, or a particular position of + Requests for reprints314 Andrew P. Smith a dial. Broadbent (1979) has argued that decrimental effects of noise may be found in these types of monitoring tasks provided that (a) the noise level is over 95 dB; (b) the length of the cask is long (over 30 minutes); (c) the signals are hard to see; and (d) the situation is not one which encourages caution. More recent studies have examined the effects of moderate intensity noise on cognitive vigilance tasks. An example of this type of task is the Bakan task where single digits are presented on the screen and subjects have to detect a particular sequence such as three successive odd digits. Poulton (1977) suggested that all the detrimental effects of noise could be explained either by the masking of acoustic cues or, in the case of cognitive tasks, by the masking of inner speech. The first part of this view has been strongly opposed (see Broadbent, 1978). The second part led to an interest in the effects of noise on cognitive vigilance, for post-experimental reports from subjects having completed the Bakan task clearly suggest that they say the digits to themselves. If noise masks internal speech such tasks should be impaired and this issue was examined by Jones, Smith & Broadbent (1979). They carried out four experiments using slightly different versions of the Bakan task. In cach case there was evidence of a detrimental effect of noise, although the exact nature of the noise effect depended on specific features of the task. This, and the finding that the noise had no differential effect on digits which were rehearsed together and those which were rehearsed separately, argues against noise producing effects solely by interfering with subvocal articulation These results do, however, show that vigilance tasks involving memory are susceptible to noise below 95 dB, which is consistent with results obtained by Benignus, Otto & Knelson (1975). This finding has also been confirmed in subsequent studies by Miles, Auburn & Jones (1984) and Smith (1988.2). The importance of the nature of the tasks will be discussed again in a later section, after results from other attention paradigms have been summarized, Noise and the five-choice serial reaction time tas Another task which has been widely used to study the effects of noise is the five- choice serial reaction time task. Broadbent (1979) has reviewed the effects of very loud noise on this task and concluded that noise increases momentary inefficiency, in that there are more errors and gaps (occasional very long reaction times) than in quiet. Again, this increased momentary inefficiency depended on the noise being over 95 dB and the subject being in the noise for at least half a1 hour. Recent research has shown that a long exposure of moderate intensity noise can produce comparable results to the older studies using levels over 95 dB. For example, Smith & Miles (1985) asked subjects to carry out a serial choice reaction time task when they had been in 75 dB noise for two hours and when they had been in the noise for five hours. The results showed that when subjects had been in the noise for five hours there was an increase in the number of errors. Poulton (1977) has tried to explain the effects of noise on the five-choice serial reaction time task in terms of masking. The explanation of the early results has been, opposed by Broadbent (1978), and recent data also argue against it. For example, Jones (1983) was able to confirm the effect of noise on errors and show that this wasNoise and aspects of attention 315 still apparent after the noise had been switched off. It is clear that something other than the masking of acoustic cues was responsible for this effect of noise on the accuracy of performing the task. Smith (1985) and Smith (19885) changed the nature of the serial reaction time task and examined the effects of noise on a biased probability task and a version where the stimulus-response arrangement was incompatible. The results showed that the effects of noise depended on the task parameters, with noise slowing responses to stimuli which were presented less frequently, but reducing reaction times to those with a high probability of occurrence. Incompatible responses were found to be slower in noise and it is difficult to explain this result, or the previous one, in terms of masking of acoustic cues. Noise and selectivity in attention In multiple tasks or tasks with several subcomponents, noise often leads to increased concentration upon the dominant or high probability component at the expense of other features, For example, Hockey (1970) showed that noise improved performance on a central tracking task but led to slower reactions to those lights which had a lower probability of occurrence. Broadbent (1971) cites several lines of evidence to support the view that noise influences selectivity in memory and attention. For example, studies of the effects of noise on the Stroop task have shown that noise may reduce the amount of interference from irrelevant colour names (¢.g. Houston & Jones, 1967). Hockey & Hamilton (1970) have also demonstrated that noise aids intentional recall but impairs incidental recall, and Smith (1982) has replicated this effect using priority instructions rather than the intentional/incidental manipulation. Unfortunately, other studies have failed to replicate the effects of noise on selectivity in memory and attention. For example, Forster & Grierson (1978) and Loeb & Jones (1978) were unable to replicate the results of Hockey (1970), although it should be noted that they used tasks with a different level of difficulty from the original study. Similarly, Smith (1982) demonstrated that the effects of task priority are easily modified, which in turn changes the effects of noise. Indeed, Smith (1982) suggested that Broadbent’s (1971) view needs modifying and that noise biases the allocation of effort towards the operation which appears best to repay the investment of effort. This may take the form of a bias towards the high priority task but itis also going to depend on other factors such as the difficulty of each part of the task, the subject's prior experience and the salience of the stimuli. This suggests that most theories which argue that performance is shifted by noise in an invariant or mechanical fashion are going to be inadequate, and that it may be more profitable to consider the strategies of performance in noise Strategies of performance in noise Smith (1983) has reviewed evidence which demonstrates that, when subjects carry out a task which can be performed in different ways, noise may lead to the adoption of certain strategies in preference to others. If task parameters are changed then the method of doing the task often changes, and this plausibly explains why noise effects vary when different versions of a task are used. It is also known that choice of an316 Andrew P. Smith appropriate strategy can eliminate the detrimental effects of noise. Pollock & Bartlett (1932) carried out an experiment in which subjects were given groups of letters and told to form as many words as possible from these letters. At first the subjects were impaired by noise but later they were able to perform as well as in the quiet condition. ‘The subjects reported that as time went on they discovered rules and mechanical techniques of solving these problems, and once they had developed these strategies the noise ceased to have an effect. In many tasks it is obvious that one strategy should be used in preference to others ‘This may be because of instructions, previous experience, or some other feature of the task. Studies by Smith (1982) and Wilding, Mohindra & Breen-Lewis (1982) have shown that noise often reinforces the use of the dominant strategy. Smith (19882, 1990, b) has examined resource allocation in noise by studying dual task performance. The difficulty of each task was varied, the probability of having to do the tasks was manipulated, and in other conditions one of the tasks had a higher priority than the other. The effect of noise depended on the nature of the task, in that monitoring tasks involving active strategies were impaired by noise whereas tasks performed passively were unimpaired. Changing task parameters only influenced the noise effect if the two tasks competed for common resources. It was also important whether task parameters were constant or changed rapidly. This last point is described in more detail in the following section on noise and flexibility of changing strategy. ‘There is evidence that noise may influence the efficiency of the control processes which monitor and alter performance. For example, Rabbitt (1979) has suggested that the effects of noise on the five-choice serial reaction time task (an increase in errors and/or gaps) can be explained in terms of noise producing inefficient control of the speed-error trade-off function. The effects of noise on control processes m: be of short duration and reflect initial coping with the task. However, other effects may continue even when the noise is switched off (see Cohen, 1980, for a review of the after-effects of noise) and may still be apparent when the subject is transferred 10 the quiet condition (see Poulton, 1982, for an account of asymmetric transfer) Poulton (1982) considers asymmetric transfer to represent the transfer of the strategy used in one condition to another condition. Dornic & Fernaeus (1982) have shown that subjects in noise are less able to switch between strategies. Smith (19902) asked subjects to carry out a dual task involving a running memory task and 2 proportion perception task. The difficulty, probability and priority of the tasks changed frequently and noise produced a general impairment of the running memory task, Overall, these results suggest that subjects in noise are rather inflexible and unable to deal efficiently with changing task demands. Another area which is relevant ro the present discussion is the effects of noise on response criteria. Broadbent & Gregory (1963, 1965) found that very loud noise (over 90 dB) produced more confident assertions or denials in the second half of vigilance task, but reduced the number of reports of intermediate confidence. Jones, Thomas & Harding (1982) examined the effects of noise on recognition memory for prose items, They used a signal detection analysis and showed that noise decreased values of beta for rare names and increased beta for common names. Smith (1989) also found that noise influenced the use of response categories, although, again, the nature of the noise effect was easily modified by changing task parameters.Noise and aspects of attention 317 Many of the studies of strategies of performance and noise have been carried out with verbal memory tasks, because they offer a variety of strategies, and shifts of dominance or preference can be easily effected. An alternative approach is to develop tasks where certain strategies are clearly used and examine whether noise influences the efficiency of the different types of processing. This technique was adopted here to investigate whether noise has selective effects on different aspects of attention. The following section gives a brief rationale for the choice of tasks in this study of attention. Dimensions of attention Many of the details of the mechanisms of selective attention are controversial (see Broadbent, 1982). However, two main types of task have been used to study selective attention (see Kahneman & Treisman, 1984), the first involving focused attention or ‘filtering’, and the second categoric search or ‘pigeonholing’. The first type of task involves selecting on the basis of some characteristic simple feature such as location in space. The other type requires the person to select a member of a category of events. If one is trying to measure the efficiency of attention it is clearly important which kind of task one uses. Indeed, Broadbent, Broadbent & Jones (1989) have shown that the wo paradigms respond differently to changes in state (in their experiment this was examined by comparing performance at different times of day) and the main aim of the present study was to examine the effects of noise on these different aspects of attention. ‘The experiment reported here obtained a number of measures of attention, the principal one being the difference between a filtering and search paradigm. The filtering paradigm was based on the method of Briksen & Eriksen (1974). They required subjects to perform a choice reaction time task to visual letters in a known location. If distracting non-target letters were also presented, the latency of the response to the target was increased. This effect was greatest if the distractors were close to the target, and this result has given rise to the analogy with a zoom lens or spotlight (Broadbent, 1982). The search task used was similar except that the subject did not know at which of the two possible locations the target would appear. Again, the two locations were close together on some trials but further apart on others. Changes of state and selective attention Broadbent, Broadbent & Jones (1989) found that the Eriksen effect (distracting stimuli impair performance if they are close to the target but not if they are widely separated from it) was reduced in the afternoon. Both the effects of noise and time of day have often been interpreted in terms of a unidimensional model of arousal but Broadbent (1971) suggested that the two factors influence different mechanisms Support for his view comes from studies which have compared the profiles of noise and time of day (see Smith, 1987), and from experiments which have examined the combination of the two factors (Smith, 1989¢, 1990c; Smith & Miles, 1985, 1986) Another aim of the present study was to determine whether noise and time of day influence the same or different attentional mechanisms by including both factors in a single experiment.318 dndrew P. Smith Vulnerability to stress and selective attention Broadbent ef a/. (1986) found that the tendency to do well at the search task compared to the focused task was correlated positively with cognitive failure. Similarly, Broadbent ¢ a/. (1989) found that the Eriksen effect was greatly reduced in individuals with high cognitive failure scores. Broadbent ef a/, (1982) suggested that high levels of cognitive failure may indicate vulnerability to external stressors. On the basis of this view, one might expect level of cognitive failure to modify the effects of noise, and this was also examined in the present study Broadbent ef a/. (1986) found that the effect of cognitive failure on the difference between the focused attention task and the search task varied according to the level of anxiety of the subjects. Anxiety has also been shown to be an important factor in noise experiments, with noise impairing the performance of anxious subjects (see Nurmi & von Wright, 1983). The present experiment also examined whether noise and anxiety influenced similar aspects of attention. ‘The aims of the present experiment can be summarized as follows. While there has been considerable interest in the effects of noise on attention, there have been no direct comparisons of the effects of noise on filtering and pigeon-holing. This experiment aimed to provide data on this topic. Broadbent ef a/. (1989) have shown that filtering and pigeon-holing respond differently to the changes in state that occur over the day. There are strong reasons to expect noise and time of day to alter performance in different ways, and the present experiment provided an opportunity to test this by comparing the effects of time of day and noise in the same experiment. ‘There are individual differences in attention and Broadbent ef a/. (1986) demonstrated that level of cognitive failure and anxiety are important. These individual differences may also be important in modifying the effects of noise on attention, which was another issue examined here. Method A between subjects design was used with one group of the subjects performing in noise and the others in quiet. Subjects in these groups either carried out the tasks in the order focused/search or in the opposite order. Subjects were tested at one of four times of day: (1) 9.00-10.005 (2) 11.00-12.00; (3) 14,00-15.00; and (4) 16.00-17.00. Prior to the experiment subjects completed the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (Broadbent, Cooper, FitzGerald & Parkes, 1982) and the Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, Gorsuch & Lushene, 1970). Thete were approximately equal numbers of males and females in the different groups formed by combining noise conditions, order of tasks and time of hy. Subjects Ninety-four members of the University of Sussex subject panel participated in the s range was 18-35 years. They were paid for taking part in the experiment. dy, and the age Nature of the noise a inuous freefield noise was used and the sound level was 85 dBC (78 dBA) with equal levels per +1 dB) from 125 to 4000 Hz. The sound level in the quiet condition was 60 dBC (50 dBA)‘oise and aspects of attention 319 Nature of the tasks (a) Focused attention task, Subjects were seated at a distance of 900 mm from a Sony monochrome monitor. The target letters were upper case As and Bs and they subtended 0.38 degrees in width and 0.51 degrees in height. On each trial three warning crosses were presented on the screen, the outside area being separated from the middle one by either 1.02 oF 2.60 degrees. ‘The subject was told to respond to the letter presented in the centre and ignore any distractors presented at the side. The crosses were ‘on the scrcen for $00 ms and were then replaced by the target letter. This letter was either accompanied by (() nothing ; (i) asterisks; (il) letters which were the same as the target, or (iv) letters which differed. ‘The two distractors were identical and the targets and accompanying letters were always A or B. The cottect response to A was to press key with the forefinger of the left hand, and to B to press a different key with the forefinger of the right hand. Subjects were given 10 practice trials followed by five blocks of 64 trials. In each block there were equal numbers of near/far conditions, A or B responses and equal numbers of the four distractor conditions. The nature of the previous trial was controlled. (b) Search task. Bach trial started with the appearance of two crosses in the positions occupied by the non-targets in the focused attention task (i.e. 2.04 or 5.20 degrees apart). The subject did not know in this task which of the crosses would be followed by the target. The letter A or B was presented alone con half the trials and was accompanied by a digit (1-7) on the other half, Again, the number of near/far stimuli, A v. B responses and digit/blank conditions were controlled. Half of the trials led to compatible responses (i. the letter A on the left of the screen, or letter B on the right) whereas the others were incompatible. The nature of the preceding trial was also controlled, In other respects (practice, number of trials, etc.) the task was identical to the focused attention task, and in both tasks the presentation of the stimuli and timing of responses were controlled by a Research Machines 3807, computer. The two tasks each took about 10 minutes to complete. Results In order to allow comparison with the results of Broadbent ef al. (1989), three measures of attention were examined. Broadbent ef al. (1989) used difference scores in their analyses and this approach was adopted here. However, statisticians dislike using difference scores because they are subject to regression artifacts associated with the correlation between the difference score and the original variables. Difference scores are also unreliable, especially when the original variables are highly correlated, as is often the case with reaction times in different conditions of the same task. Analyses were, therefore, carried out on both the original data and the difference scores, Unless stated in the text, these produced identical results. The difference between the focused attention and search tasks Reaction times are generally faster when one knows the location in advance. The most pure measute of this effect is to consider only trials from the two tasks where there were no distractors, on which the fixation points were in the nearer of their possible separations, and where compatible responses were made. Broadbent ¢f a/. (1986) refer to this response as SPUL (Spatial Uncertainty Little). An analysis of-variance was carried out on the SPUL scores, the between subjects factors being noise conditions and order of the two tasks. The main effect of noise was significant (F(1,90) = 9.11, p <.005) as was the effect of order of tasks (F(1, 90) = 18.06, p < 005). Figure 1 shows that the difference between the two tasks320 Andrew P. Smith was greater in quiet than noise, and that this was due to subjects in noise responding more slowly on the focused attention task. There was no effect of noise on the categoric search task. 520 300 480 460 440 Mean RT (ms) 400 380, 360 Focused Search Attention Figure 1. Effects of noise on the focused attention and search tasks (standard deviations shown as bats) Scores re the mean reaction times in ms for trials where there were no distractors, where the fixation points were in the neater of their possible separations, and where compatible responses were made. Ml, quiet: Subsequent ANOVAs included the factors of time of day, cognitive failure or anxiety (in addition to noise conditions and order of tasks). The effect of time of day failed to achieve significance (F(3, 78) = 1.47, p > .05) as did the noise x time of day interaction (F(3,78) = 1.45, p > .05). In the analysis including level cognitive failure, subjects were classified as high CFQ subjects if their score was above 45. Broadbent ef a/. (1986) reported a negative correlation between CFQ and SPUL and this was also obtained here (r = —0.2), However, an analysis of variance showed that both the main effect of CFQ level and the noise x CFQ interaction failed to reach significance (F(1,86) = 1.55, p > .05, and F < 1), When anxiety was included in the analysis, the subjects were subdivided according to a median split (median = 40). The main effect of anxiety was not significant (F(1, 86) = 2.51, p = 12), nor was the noise X anxiety interaction (F < 1) The Eriksen effect Broadbent ef a/. (1989) calculated another score which represents the Eriksen effect (ERIK = the difference between agreeing and disagreeing distractors for the near spatial separation minus the corresponding difference for the far separation). Noise had no significant effect on this measure (F(1,90) = 1.01, p > .05) but there was a significant difference between morning and afternoon (F(1, 86) 5.07, p < .05), with the Eriksen effect being reduced in the afternoon (see Fig. 2). This confirms the result of Broadbent ef a/. (1989), who also found that this reduction in the afternoon was greatest for subjects with high levels of cognitive failure, In the present study the time of day x CFQ effect was also observed and was significant at a level which ig required for a coniimatory result (F(1,86) = 2.77, p <.05, one-tailed).lise and aspects of attention 321 50 40, EBricksen effect (ms) 8 9.00 11.00 1400 16.00 Time of day Figure 2. Effects of time of day on the Eriksen effect as bars. The score is the mean difference in ms between agreeing and disagreeing distractors for the near spatial separation minus the corresponding difference for the far separation (standard deviations). The place repetition effect Broadbent ef a/. (1989) used the search task to examine the place repetition effect (responses are faster if the target is in the same location as the target on the previous trial—Tipper & Cranston, 1985). This score was calculated and ANOVAS carried out. Neither noise nor any of the other factors considered (or their interactions) significantly changed the size of the place repetition effect. As well as measuring various dimensions of attention, the task used here allows one to examine factors known to be important in choice reaction time tasks (e.g. repetition effects, hand of response). Further ANOVAs distinguishing these factors failed to show any significant effects of noise. All the previous analyses have been based on the speed of response. The average error rate was 2.6 per cent and there was no significant effect of noise or noise x task interaction (both Fs < 1). The first aim of the present experiment was to provide data on the effects of noise on the focused attention and search tasks. The results showed that noise has selective effects, and performance on the focused attention task was impaired in noise. This result confirms the view that noise will influence performance of tasks involving focused attention (Broadbent, 1971). Many of the previous results have suggested that noise increases focused attention. The present result suggests that focused attention tasks are vulnerable to the effects of noise, although the direction of the noise effect may be determined by the specific features of the task. This agrees with the revised view of the effect of noise on selective attention (Broadbent, 1983; Smith,eve) Andrew P. Smith 1982). Indeed, while noise reduced the size of SPUL (the difference between the search task and focused attention task), it did not alter either the Eriksen effect or the place repetition effect ‘The present results are also important for theories of selective attention. They show that the filtering and pigeon-holing paradigms respond differently to noise, and this strengthens the view that the difference between the two types of task is fundamental rather than minor one. Broadbent ef a/. (1989) used this argument when they were considering the effects of time of day on the two tasks. The results reported here confirmed the view that time of day influences the Eriksen effect and place repetition effect in different ways. However, the major interest in time of day here is that it produces different effects from noise and does not interact with noise as would be predicted by a unidimensional arousal theory. These results support Broadbent's (1971) view that noise and time of day influence different mechanisms. This view was based on studies using the five-choice serial response task, and it is important that it has been confirmed using different paradigms in an experiment where noise and time of day were manipulated in the same study. One possible reason for the negative results is that certain subgroups might be impaired by noise whereas others would show the reverse effect. Previous results have suggested that anxious subjects may show greater impairments in noise than those with low levels of anxiety. This was not apparent here, although it should be noted that only /raif anxiety was measured. Further experimentation is required to determine whether state anxiety is related to individual differences in response to noise in the paradigms used here. The present results confirm Broadbent ef a/.’s (1989) conclusion that the attention system is not mechanical and automatic but rather it is a flexible and adaptive system influenced by context. Both the review section of the paper and the experimental section have been largely descriptive. ‘This is because we have little idea about the mechanisms underlying the various noise effects. However, the technique used here can now be adopted in future studies which will examine the mechanisms in more detail. This, in turn, will provide information about which dimensions of attention are invariant processes and which depend on the experimental context At the moment one can conclude that noise has selective effects on the filtering and pigeon-holing paradigms. Noise does not influence the extent of the Eriksen effect, nor does it change the size of the place repetition effect. In contrast, time of day changes the Eriksen effect but does not influence the function impaired by noise. This confirms that noise and time of day influence separate mechanisms and shows that the present paradigms are extremely useful in understanding different activation states ‘The present study also confitms the importance of studying changes in state for our understanding of attentional mechanisms. References Benignus, V. A., Otto, D. & Knelson, J. H. (1975). Bfects of low frequency random noises on performance of a numerical monitoring task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 231-239. Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and Communication. London: Pergamon Press, Broadbent, D. E. (1971). Decision and Stress. London: Academic Press. Broadbent, D. B. (1978). The current state of noise research : Reply to Poulton. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1052-1067.Noise and aspects of attention 323 Broadbent, D. E. (1979). Human performance and noise. In C, Hartis (Ed.), Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Broadbent, D. E. (1981). The effects of moderate levels of noise on human performance. In J. V. Tobias & E, D. Schubert (Eds), Hearing Research and Theory. New York: Academic Press. Broadbent, D. E. (1982). Task combination and selective intake of information. Acta Psychologica, 50, 253-290. Broadbent, D. E. (1983). Recent advances in understanding performance in noise. In G. Rossi (Fad.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. W. Milan: Centto Ricerche ¢ Studi Amplifon. Broadbent, D. E. & Gregory, M. (1963). Vigilance considered as a statistical decision. British Journal of Psychology, 84, 309-323, Broadbent, D. E. & Gregory, M. (1965). Effects of noise and signal rate upon vigilance analysed by means of decision theory. Human Factors, 7, 135-162. Broadbent, D. E., Broadbent, M. H. P. & Jones, J. L. (1986). Performance correlates of self-reported cognitive failure and of obsessionality. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 285-299. Broadbent, D. E., Broadbent, M. H. P. & Jones, J. L. (1989). Time of day as an instrument for the analysis of attention. Exropean Journal of Cognitive Prycbolegy, 1, 69-94. Broadbent, D.F., Cooper, P.F., FitzGerald, P. & Parkes, K.R. (1982). ‘The cognitive failures ‘questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 1-16. Cohen, S. (1980). Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behaviour: A review of research and theory. Psycbological Bulletin, 88, 82-108. Dornic, S. & Fernaeus, $. (1982). Incidental Learning and Processing Rigidity in Noise, Report No. 589. Sweden: Department of Psychology, University of Stockholm. Eriksen, B. A. & Eriksen, C. W. (1974), Effects of noise letters upon identification of targets in a non- search task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149. Forster, P.M. & Grierson, A. (1978). Noise and attentional selectivity: A reproducible phenomenon? British Journal of Psychology, 69, 489-498, Hockey, G. R. (1970). Effect of loud noise on attentional selectivity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Paycbology, 22, 28-36. Hockey, G. R. J. & Hamilton, P, (1970). Arousal and information selection in short-term memory Nature, 226, 866-867. Houston, B.K. & Jones, ‘T. M. (1967). Distraction and Stroop color-word performance. Journal of Experimental P-ychology, 74, 54-56, Jones, D. M, (1983). Loud noise and levels of control: A study of serial reaction. In G. Rossi (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. Milan: Centro Ricerche € Studi Amplifon. Jones, D. M. (1984). Performance effects. In D. M. Jones & A. J. Chapman (Eds), Noise and Society. Chichester: Wiley Jones, D. (1990), Progress and prospects in the study of performance in noise. In B. Berglund & T. Lindvall (Eds), New Advances in Noise Research, Part 1. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research. Jones, D. M., Smith, A. P. & Broadbent, D. E. (1979). Effects of moderate intensity noise on the Bakan Vigilance Task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 627-634, Jones, D.M., Thomas, JR. & Harding, A. (1982). Recognition memory for prose items in noise. Current Prycbological Research, 2, 33-44, Kahneman, D. & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds), Varieties of Attention. London: Academic Press. Loeb, M. & Jones, P. D. (1978). Noise exposure, monitoring and tracking performance as a function of signal bias and task priority. Ergonomics, 21, 265-277. Miles, C., Auburn, T. & Jones, D. (1984). Bffects of loud noise and signal probability on visual vigilance. Ergonomics, 27, 855-862. Nunmi, J.-B. & von Wright, J. (1983). Interactive effects of noise, neuroticism and state~anxiety in the learning and recall of a textbook passage. Human Learning, 2, 119-125, Pollock, K.G. & Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Two studies in the psychological effects of avise. 1 ne324 Andrew P. Smith Psychological experiments on the effects of noise. Medical Research Council, Industrial Health Research Board, Report No. 65, pp. 1-37. London: HMSO. Poulton, &. C. (1977). Continuous noise masks auditory feedback and inner speech. Prychological Bulletin, 84, 977-1001. Poulton, F. C. (1982). Influential companions: Effects of one strategy on another in the within subjects, designs of cognitive psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 673-690. Rabbitt, P.M. A. (1979). Current paradigms and models in human information processing. In V Hamilton & D. M. Warburton (Rds), Human Strest and Cognition. Chichester: Wiley. Smith, A. P. (1982). ‘The effects of noise and task priority on recall of order and location. -teta Psychologica, 51, 245~255, Smith, A. P. (1983). The effects of noise on strategies of human performance. In G. Rossi (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. Milan : Centro Ricerche ¢ Studi Amplifon. ‘Smith, A. P. (1985). Noise, biased probability and serial reaction. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 89-95. Smith, A. P. (1987). Activation states and semantic processing: A comparison of the effects of noise and time of day. Acta Prycbologica, 64, 271-288, Smith, A. P. (19884). Acute effects of noise exposure: Aa experimental investigation of the effects and task parameters on cognitive vigilance tasks. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 60, 307-310. Smith, A. P. (19884). Noise, S“R compatibility, and hand dominance. Scandinavian Journal of Prychologs, 29, 180-185. Smith, A. P, (19894). A review of the effects of noise on human performance. Scandinavian Journal of Paycholagy, 30, 185-206 Smith, A. P. (19894). Noise, confidence ratings and recognition memory. In E.D. Megaw (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics 1989. London: Taylor & Francis Smith, A. P. (1989¢). Circadian variation in stress: The effects of noise at different times of day. In C. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason & J. Steclau (Eds), Stress and Anxiety, vol. 12. New York: Hemisphere. Smith, A. P. (19904). Bflects of noise and task parameters on dual cognitive vigilance tasks. In D. Brogan (Ed.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Virnal Search, London: Taylor & Francis, Smith, A.P, (19908). Noise, task parameters and cognitive vigilance tasks. In F. Lovesey (Fd.), Contemporary Ergonomics 1990, London: Taylor & Francis. Smith, A. P. (19902). An experimental investigation of the combined effects of noise and nightwork on human function. In B. Berglund & T. Lindvall (Rds), Noire ar « Public Health Problem vol. 5: New advances in noize research, Part II. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research. Smith, A. P. & Broadbent, D. F. (in press). Non-auditory effects of noise at work: A review of the literature. Health and Safety Executive Smith, A. P. & Miles, C. (1985). ‘The combined effects of noise and nightwork on buman function. In 1D. Oborne (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics. London: ‘aylor & Francis Smith, A. P. & Miles, C. (1986). The combined effects of nightwork and noise on human function. In M. Haider, M. Koller & R. Cervinka (ds), Night and Shiftwork : Longterm Effects and Uheir Prevention. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L. & Lushene, R. F. (1970). The State Trait Anxiety Imentory (STAT) Test Manual, Palo Alo, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. ‘Tipper, S. F. & Cranston, M, (1985). Selective attention and priming: Inhibitory and facilitatory effects of ignored primes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37K, 591-611 Wilding, J. M., Mohindra, N. & Breen-Lewis, K. (1982). Noise effects in free recall with different orienting tasks. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 479-487, Received 18 September 1990; revised version received 5 April 1991Copyright © 2003 EBSCO Publishing