Potential health risks of exposure to noise from personal music ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Health risks from exposure to noise from personal music playersby exposure to aircraft and road-traffic noise and speech noise at 66 dB(A) L equ during 15min exposure time while reading a text and tested for memory of the text an hour lateror a week later. For aircraft noise there was impaired memory also from 15 min exposureto 55 dB(A) L equ .For chronic aircraft noise exposure the Munich study (Hygge et al. 2002) and the RANCHstudy (Stansfeld et al. 2005) indicated that children exposed to chronic aircraft noiseshowed cognitive deficits compared to children not having been exposed to chronicaircraft noise. It was also found that the children at the old airport in Munich, who got ridof aircraft noise, improved their cognitive performance. Thus, there was somereversibility in the negative effects of noise on cognition when the noise ceased. To whatextent this recovery is dependent upon the age of the children in question (11-12 years)and the accompanying continuing growth in cognitive development, we do not know.Thus, short time exposure (15 min) to noise with average levels of 65 dB(A), impairsmemory and learning. Long-time chronic exposure to, at least aircraft noise, indicate thatthere will be statistically significant impairments of memory and language skills when thenoise levels increase from around or below 55 to above 60 dB(A) L equ .3.9.1.2. Attention and distractionUse of music is sometimes employed to distract from a noisy working environment, andsometimes this is beneficial. One reason for this to happen is that the more boring,repetitive and simple a task is, the more will it benefit, both in quality and quantity, frombeing performed in noise (Kryter 1994). On the other hand, the more complex anddifficult the task is, the more it is prone to be hampered by excessive sounds.When the noise is preferred music from PMP one would in addition expect more of aperceived comfort. Further, when the music from the PMP also masks distracting soundsin the environment, devoid of relevant information or warning characteristics, it will mostlikely be a subjective advantage to listen to the PMP rather than to shut it off. On theother hand, the more cognitively demanding the task is, the more it is dependent uponspeech communication, and the more there are of potential warning sounds in the closeenvironment, the more to the disadvantage of the task performance and the security ofthe listener the PMP-listening is.With regard to attention, there is always a risk that the sound of the music listened tofrom the PMP will acoustically mask warning sounds e.g. from approaching cars, streetcrossings or reversing trucks. Even if the music is not in a physical sense masking thewarning sound, the focused attention on the music will from time to time make thelistener inattentive to other sounds, some of which my be warning sounds.3.9.1.3. School performanceThere are a several cross-sectional studies that have reported a covariation between highnoise levels (from aircraft or road traffic) and low grades or low levels of schoolachievement (Cohen et al. 1981, Cohen et al. 1986, Green et al. 1982, Evans andMaxwell 1997, Haines et al. 2001a, Haines et al. 2001b, Haines et al. 2001c, Haines etal. 2002, Maser et al. 1978, Stansfeld et al. 2005). However, cross-sectional studiessuffer from two possible short-comings. The first is the differential socio-demographiccomposition of the noise dose groups, which may favour children in quiet middle-classhousing and living areas. Adjusting statistically for the social class effects may not besufficient to control for this. The second is the possible confound between being exposedto noise both while learning and when tested for what is learnt. Noise at testing maylower the test scores without learning being effected, but the effects of noise on learningand performing can not be disentangled. Thus, cross-sectional studies are not the bestplatform for a strong inference on cause-effect relationships.56
Health risks from exposure to noise from personal music players3.9.1.4. MotivationOne laboratory study (Glass 1977) and several field studies (Bullinger et al. 1999, Cohenet al. 1986, Evans et al. 1995, Maxwell and Evans 2000) have found that childrenchronically exposed to noise are less motivated when placed in achievement situationswhere task performance is contingent upon persistence. Cohen et al. (1986) also foundthat a second index of motivation, abrogation of choice, was affected by chronic noiseexposure. Children chronically exposed to noise, following a set of experimentalprocedures in quiet conditions, were more apt to relinquish choice over a reward to anexperimenter, in comparison to their well matched quiet counterparts. Haines et al.(2001a) could not replicate the effects of aircraft noise on puzzle persistence inelementary school children although they administered the task in small groups ratherthan individually.Perceived control is at the heart of the theorising about noise after-effects. When thenoise exposed person perceives that (s)he has control over the noise exposure or noisesource, the motivational after effects vanish. Thus, we can not really expect that thepersons that freely expose themselves to music from PMPs will lose any motivation justbecause of that.3.9.1.5. Lasting after effects on cognition from listeningto PMPsNo directly relevant study of lasting after effects (effects that last also after the cessationof noise exposrue) of listenting to PMP on memory, learning, attention or other facets ofcognition has been located in the international research literature. Studies of lastingcognitive effects from involuntary exposure to chronic aircraft and road traffic noise(Hygge et al. 2002, Stansfeld et al. 2005) have indicated impaired memory and learningwith an increased noise level. It is questionable though whether those studies validly canbe stretched to make any inference about voluntary, non-chronic exposure to music. Andeven if the studies of chronic noise and cognition in some ways are applicable to PMPlistening,they can not state in any detail how long (years) the chronic noise must bepresent to result in impaired cognition, and whether this cognitive impairment will bepermanent or not. For instance, in a study around the Munich airport (Hygge et al. 2002)children chronically exposed to noise at the old airport, and lagging behind their silentcontrol group on memory and language performance, recovered from their deficits within18 months after the airport was closed down.Thus, there does not seem to be sufficient research on PMPs to conclude anything aboutlong lasting effects on cognition, and the available evidence from research on other noisesources is not detailed enough to give any strong indications about exposure durationand permanence of cognitive deficits.3.9.2. Other EffectsThe obvious beneficial effect of listening to PMPs is indulging in a preferred activity,which is also the intended outcome. As long as this activity does not interfere withintended or required task performance, there should be no need to restrict listening toPMPs.3.9.2.1. SleepAlthough there is not much of relevant research, the little research there is point tochildren having somewhat better sleep than adults. Lukas (1972) stated that children arenot as easily awakened by noises adults are. Öhrström et al. (2006) compared childrenaged 9-12 years with their parents in a road traffic study and reported that for parentsthere was a significant exposure-effect between noise and several self reported sleepparameters, but this relationship was less marked for children.57
Page 1 and 2:
Scientific Committee on Emerging an
Page 3 and 4:
Health risks from exposure to noise
Page 5 and 6: Health risks from exposure to noise
show all

Potential health risks of exposure to noise from personal music ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?