Short answer

When designing acoustic solutions for shared workspaces, prioritize user testing and subjective feedback to ensure that proposed sound masking strategies genuinely enhance, rather than detract from, the work environment.

Field
Human Factors
Source
Frontiers in Psychology (2017)
Method
Longitudinal field experiment with subjective user feedback.
Sample
77 employees
Evidence
Moderate effect

Despite the intention to improve acoustic environments, water-based masking sounds were found to be less acoustically satisfying and more disruptive than pseudo-random noise masking in a long-term office experiment. This human factors research insight is drawn from a 2017 study published in Frontiers in Psychology. Using Longitudinal field experiment with subjective user feedback. with 77 employees, researchers explored how this design variable affects real-world outcomes. The key design takeaway: When designing acoustic solutions for shared workspaces, prioritize user testing and subjective feedback to ensure that proposed sound masking strategies genuinely enhance, rather than detract from, the work environment.

Study
Human FactorsHigh ImpactModerate effect

Water-based masking sounds are perceived as more disruptive than traditional noise in open-plan offices.

Despite the intention to improve acoustic environments, water-based masking sounds were found to be less acoustically satisfying and more disruptive than pseudo-random noise masking in a long-term office experiment.

Frontiers in Psychology · 2017

01

Key Findings

  • 01Acoustic satisfaction was worse during WBMS conditions compared to PRMS.
  • 02Three out of four WBMS conditions resulted in greater disturbance than PRMS.
  • 03PRMS was favored for sound quality attributes.
  • 04Colleagues' speech sounds were more disturbing during WBMS.
02

Application

Design takeaway

When designing acoustic solutions for shared workspaces, prioritize user testing and subjective feedback to ensure that proposed sound masking strategies genuinely enhance, rather than detract from, the work environment.

How to apply

Before implementing any new sound masking system in an office, conduct pilot studies with representative users to gather feedback on perceived comfort, distraction, and overall satisfaction.

Project actions

  • 01When testing sound, consider how it affects concentration and mood, not just how loud it is.
  • 02Think about how different sounds might be perceived by different people.
03

Method & Evidence

AimTo investigate employee perception of different water-based masking sounds compared to traditional pseudo-random noise masking in an open-plan office setting.
MethodLongitudinal field experiment with subjective user feedback.
ProcedureEmployees in an open-plan office were exposed to five different acoustic conditions over three weeks each: their usual pseudo-random noise masking (PRMS) and four variations of water-based masking sounds (WBMS), followed by a return to PRMS. Acoustic satisfaction and disturbance levels were assessed via questionnaires after each condition.
Sample77 employees
ContextOpen-plan office environment

Variables

IV["Type of masking sound (PRMS vs. four WBMS variations)"]
DV["Acoustic satisfaction","Disturbance from speech sounds","Perceived sound quality"]
CV["Overall sound pressure level (LAeq)","Duration of exposure for each condition","Office environment"]
04

Strengths & Limitations

Strengths

  • +Long-term exposure (3 weeks per condition) provides insight into adaptation and sustained perception.
  • +Real-world office setting offers ecological validity.

Limitations

The study's findings might not apply to all types of water sounds or all office environments.

Reliability & validity

The use of a large sample size and a longitudinal design in a real-world setting enhances ecological validity. However, potential confounding factors in a naturalistic office environment and the specific methodological weaknesses mentioned by the authors may affect internal validity and replicability.

Think critically

Given that WBMS was not preferred, what specific characteristics of WBMS might have led to this negative perception, and how could these be mitigated in future designs?

05

Design Principles

"Acoustic interventions in shared spaces must be validated through user perception studies, considering spectral content and subjective disturbance, not just overall sound pressure levels."

This research highlights the critical importance of understanding user perception when implementing environmental sound solutions. Designers must move beyond purely technical specifications to consider the subjective experience and potential negative impacts on productivity and well-being.

06

What This Means for Your Design

Using sounds like waterfalls to mask office noise didn't work as well as the usual white noise; people found it more annoying and distracting.

How to use in your project

  • 1.Use this study to justify why user perception is crucial when evaluating auditory design elements in your own design project.
07

Add to My Project

08

Quick Cite

Paragraph starter

Research by Hongisto et al. (2017) in an open-plan office found that water-based masking sounds were perceived as more disruptive and less acoustically satisfying than traditional pseudo-random noise masking, indicating that the subjective qualities of sound, beyond mere decibel levels, are critical for user acceptance and well-being in workplace acoustics.

09

Source

Frontiers in Psychology

Perception of Water-Based Masking Sounds—Long-Term Experiment in an Open-Plan Office

journal · 2017

View source

Questions About This Research

What does the research say about water-based masking sounds are perceived as more disruptive than traditional noise in open-plan offices?
When designing acoustic solutions for shared workspaces, prioritize user testing and subjective feedback to ensure that proposed sound masking strategies genuinely enhance, rather than detract from, the work environment. Evidence: Frontiers in Psychology (2017).
Why does "Water-based masking sounds are perceived as more disruptive than traditional noise in open-plan offices." matter for design?
This research highlights the critical importance of understanding user perception when implementing environmental sound solutions. Designers must move beyond purely technical specifications to consider the subjective experience and potential negative impacts on productivity and well-being.
How can designers apply this research?
When designing acoustic solutions for shared workspaces, prioritize user testing and subjective feedback to ensure that proposed sound masking strategies genuinely enhance, rather than detract from, the work environment.
What were the main findings?
Acoustic satisfaction was worse during WBMS conditions compared to PRMS.. Three out of four WBMS conditions resulted in greater disturbance than PRMS.. PRMS was favored for sound quality attributes.. Colleagues' speech sounds were more disturbing during WBMS.
What research method was used?
Longitudinal field experiment with subjective user feedback. with 77 employees.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence strength is rated Moderate effect, based on a 2017 journal from Frontiers in Psychology.
What should I do differently in my next project?
Before implementing any new sound masking system in an office, conduct pilot studies with representative users to gather feedback on perceived comfort, distraction, and overall satisfaction.
What are the limitations?
Methodological weaknesses in the experiment may limit definitive conclusions about the adequacy of WBMS.