Noise Health Close
 

Figure 4 :Subjective evaluations of noise samples played in experiment I (mean values with 95% confidence intervals). Annoyance and loudness related to each noise sample (a) and assessments of disturbing effects in case of mentally demanding tasks and simple routine jobs (b) were compared in pairs; only the cases without significant differences (.2.400 . t(54) . .1.227, 0.020 . P . 0.225, = 0.05/6) in subjective evaluations were marked (.), for other cases significant differences were noted (7.628 . t(54) . 12.366, P<0.0001, = 0.05/6). Additionally, cases with significant main effect of individual sensitivity to LFN on annoyance rating (5.289 . F(1,51) . 5.494, 0.026 . P . 0.023) were marked (.), cases with significant main effect of individual sensitivity to noise in general on annoyance rating (4,389 . F(1,51) . 5.174, 0.041 . P . 0.027) were marked (.), and case with an interaction of these two sensitivities (F(1,51) = 6.707, P=0.012) were marked (.)

Figure 4 :Subjective evaluations of noise samples played in experiment I (mean values with 95% confidence intervals). Annoyance and loudness related to each noise sample (a) and assessments of disturbing effects in case of mentally demanding tasks and simple routine jobs (b) were compared in pairs; only the cases without significant differences (.2.400 . t(54) . .1.227, 0.020 . P . 0.225,  = 0.05/6) in subjective evaluations were marked (.), for other cases significant differences were noted (7.628 . t(54) . 12.366, P<0.0001,  = 0.05/6). Additionally, cases with significant main effect of individual sensitivity to LFN on annoyance rating (5.289 . F(1,51) . 5.494, 0.026 . P . 0.023) were marked (.), cases with significant main effect of individual sensitivity to noise in general on annoyance rating (4,389 . F(1,51) . 5.174, 0.041 . P . 0.027) were marked (.), and case with an interaction of these two sensitivities (F(1,51) = 6.707, P=0.012) were marked (.)