Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2022; 33(03): 125-133
DOI: 10.1055/a-1656-5996
Research Article

The Effect of Music Genre and Music-Preference Dimension on Acceptable Noise Levels in Listeners with ‘Normal’ Hearing

Susan Gordon-Hickey
1   Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, the University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama
,
Melinda F. Bryan
2   Department of Communication Disorders, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The acceptable noise level (ANL) is the maximum level of background noise that an individual is willing to accept while listening to speech. The type of background noise does not affect ANL results except for music.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine if ANL differed due to music genre or music genre preference.

Research Design A repeated-measures experimental design was employed.

Study Sample Thirty-three young adults with normal hearing served as listeners.

Data Collection and Analysis Most comfortable listening level and background noise level were measured to twelve-talker babble and five music samples from different genres: blues, classical, country, jazz, and rock. Additionally, music preference was evaluated via rank ordering of genre and by completion of the Short Test of Music Preference (STOMP) questionnaire.

Results The ANL for music differed based on music genre; however, the difference was unrelated to music genre preference. Also, those with low ANLs tended to prefer the intense and rebellious music-preference dimension compared with those with high ANLs.

Conclusions For instrumental music, ANL was lower for blues and rock music compared with classical, country, and jazz. The differences identified were not related to music genre preference; however, this finding may be related to the music-preference dimension of intense and rebellious music. Future work should evaluate the psychological variables that make up music-preference dimension to determine if these relate to our ANL.

Keywords

acceptable noise level - background noise - music preference

Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.




Publication History

Received: 01 December 2020

Accepted: 24 September 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
28 September 2021

Article published online:
10 October 2022

© 2022. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Beattie RC. Word recognition functions for the CID W-22 test in multitalker noise for normally hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J Speech Hear Disord 1989; 54 (01) 20-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bentler RA. List equivalency and test-retest reliability of the Speech in Noise test. Am J Audiol 2000; 9 (02) 84-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bilger RC, Nuetzel JM, Rabinowitz WM, Rzeczkowski C. Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J Speech Hear Res 1984; 27 (01) 32-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliott LL. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 1977; 61 (05) 1337-1351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Nàbĕlek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34 (03) 679-685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95 (02) 1085-1099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Stockley KB, Green WB. Interlist equivalency of the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 in quiet and noise with adult hearing-impaired individuals. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11 (02) 91-96
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Stuart A. An investigation of list equivalency of the northwestern university auditory test no. 6 in interrupted broadband noise. Am J Audiol 2004; 13 (01) 23-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gordon-Hickey S, Moore R. Acceptable noise levels to intelligible and unintelligible background noise. Am J Audiol 2007; 17: 129-135
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Rentfrow PJ, Gosling SD. The do re mi's of everyday life: the structure and personality correlates of music preferences. J Pers Soc Psychol 2003; 84 (06) 1236-1256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ahn HJ, Bahng J, Lee JH. Measurement of acceptable noise level with background music. J Audiol Otol 2015; 19 (02) 79-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Balfour PB, Hawkins DB. A comparison of sound quality judgments for monaural and binaural hearing aid processed stimuli. Ear Hear 1992; 13 (05) 331-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Franks JR. Judgments of hearing aid processed music. Ear Hear 1982; 3 (01) 18-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gfeller K, Christ A, Knutson JF, Witt S, Murray KT, Tyler RS. Musical backgrounds, listening habits, and aesthetic enjoyment of adult cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11 (07) 390-406
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kong YY, Cruz R, Jones JA, Zeng FG. Music perception with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (02) 173-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Leal MC, Shin YJ, Laborde ML. et al. Music perception in adult cochlear implant recipients. Acta Otolaryngol 2003; 123 (07) 826-835
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Looi V, McDermott H, McKay C, Hickson L. Music perception of cochlear implant users compared with that of hearing aid users. Ear Hear 2008; 29 (03) 421-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Moran M, Rousset A, Looi V. Music appreciation and music listening in prelingual and postlingually deaf adult cochlear implant recipients. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (Suppl. 02) S57-S63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gonzalez MF, Aiello JR. More than meets the ear: Investigating how music affects cognitive task performance. J Exp Psychol Appl 2019; 25 (03) 431-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 North AC, Hargreaves DJ, McKendrick J. In-store music affects produce choice. Nature 1997; 390: 132
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kang E, Lakshmanan A. Role of executive attention in consumer learning with background music. J Consum Psychol 2017; 27: 35-48
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol 1935; 18: 643-662
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Furnham A, Bradley A. Music while you work: the differential distraction of background music on the cognitive test performance of introverts and extraverts. Appl Cogn Psychol 1997; 11: 445-455
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Furnham A, Strbac L. Music is as distracting as noise: the differential distraction of background music and noise on the cognitive test performance of introverts and extraverts. Ergonomics 2002; 45 (03) 203-217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Proverbio AM, Lozano Nasi V, Alessandra Arcari L. et al. The effect of background music on episodic memory and autonomic responses: listening to emotionally touching music enhances facial memory capacity. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 15219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Parente JA. Music preferences as a factor of music distraction. Percept Mot Skills 1976; 43: 337-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Staum MJ, Brotons M. The effect of music amplitude on the relaxation response. J Music Ther 2000; 37 (01) 22-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 American National Standards Institute. Maximum Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Room (ANSI S3.1–2018). New York: American National Standards Institute; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 29 American National Standards Institute. American National Standards Specification for Audiometers (ANSI S3. 6–2018). New York: American National Standards Institute; 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Bryan MF, Gordon-Hickey S, Hay AL, Davis ST. Acceptable noise level stability over a one-year period of time. J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31 (05) 336-341
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Freyaldenhoven MC, Nàbĕlek AK, Burchfield SB, Thelin JW. Acceptable noise level as a measure of directional hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (04) 228-236
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Freyaldenhoven MC, Thelin JW, Plyler PN, Nàbĕlek AK, Burchfield SB. Effect of stimulant medication on the acceptance of background noise in individuals with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (09) 677-686
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Nàbĕlek AK, Tampas JW, Burchfield SB. Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004; 47 (05) 1001-1011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Rogers DS, Harkrider AW, Burchfield SB, Nàbĕlek AK. The influence of listener's gender on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol 2003; 14 (07) 372-382 , quiz 401
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 De Veaux RD, Velleman PF, Bock DE. (2006) Intro Stats. 2nd edition.. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.;
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Gosling S. (n.d.). GOZ Lab. Short Test of Music Preferences (STOMP). Retrieved July 26, 2021. Accessed Oct 18, 2021 from http://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/scales-weve-developed/short-test-of-music-preferences-stomp/
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Franklin C, Johnson LV, White L, Franklin C, Smith-Olinde L. The relationship between personality type and acceptable noise levels: a pilot study. ISRN Otolaryngol 2013; 2013: 902532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Nichols A, Gordon-Hickey S. The relationship of locus of control, self-control and acceptable noise levels. Int J of Aud 2012; 51: 353-359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar