British Journal of Psychology (1983), 74, 83-89 Printed in Great Britain 83

The effects of noise and time on task on recall of order information

Andrew P. Smith

Recent evidence has suggested that noise may improve recall of order information, although one
should note that certain experiments have found either no effect of noise or an impairment in noise.
The first experiment showed that the effect of noise on recall of order changed during the course of
the task, performance being slightly improved by noise in the first half but impaired by noise in the
second. Thus, the usual finding of improvement in recall of order is especially likely to be obtained
with short experiments.
Another experiment was carried out to determine whether the later impairment by noise was due
to previous exposure to the noise, practice at the task, or both. Taken together, the results of the two
experiments showed that both noise and practice were necessary to produce the later impairment of
order recall.

Broadbent (1979) has reviewed the effects of high intensity noise on performance and he
has distinguished an initial distracting effect of noise and effects which often appear later in
the session. Experiments which use a short noise duration may only be studying distraction
and any reported noise effects may be temporary in nature, because there is often rapid
habituation to the initial distraction (e.g. Ford, 1929). A noise effect may change with time
on task for several reasons. First, the nature of the effect may depend on the amount of
prior experience the subject has had with the task ; second, on the duration of the exposure
to noise; and third, on both previous exposure to the task and to the noise.
Wilding & Mohindra (1980) list studies which have shown that noise (u) improves recall
of order (e.g. Daee & Wilding, 1977), (h) has no effect on the recall of order (e.g. Davies &
Jones, 1975) and (c) impairs recall of order (e.g. Salame & Wittersheim, 1978). Most of the
studies listed by Wilding & Mohindra have not considered the importance of time on task
in determining the nature of the noise effect. Indeed, many of the studies have used a single
trial (e.g. Daee & Wilding, 1977; Davies & Jones, 1975; Hockey & Hamilton, 1970) and
this has also meant that the noise duration has been short (e.g. Daee & Wilding: 80 s;
Davies & Jones: 18 s; Hockey & Hamilton: 16 s plus time for recall), and the subjects
relatively unpracticed at the task. It would seem desirable, therefore, to carry out an
experiment using a larger number of noisy trials and to examine any changes of the effects
of noise with time on task. If the noise effect did change with time on task it would not be
clear whether this change was produced by previous practice at the task, previous exposure
to the noise or both. One would then have to carry out another study investigating how
prior practice or prior exposure influenced the effect of noise on recall of order.
Wilding & Mohindra (1980) also list studies which show that noise may reduce semantic
organization (clustering) in free recall (e.g. Daee & Wilding, 1977). Smith, Jones &
Broadbent (1981) studied the effects of noise on recall of categorized lists in detail and, in
their first experiment, they found that noise reduced clustering in the first testing session
but increased it in the second. Unfortunately, it is not clear whether this change in the
noise effect is genuine or whether it reflects an interaction of noise with materials (a fixed
order of lists was used and there were more exhaustive categories in the lists used in the
second session). There is already evidence showing that the effects of noise on ordered
recall do change as a function of time on task. Millar (1979) had subjects carry out an
ordered recall task in either noise or quiet, and with or without articulatory suppression.
The rationale behind the combination of noise conditions with suppression conditions can
0007-1269/83/010083-07 $02.00/0 © 1983 The British Psychological Society
84 Andrew P. Smith

briefly be summarized in the following way. It has been suggested that noise may impair
inner speech (Poulton, 1977) and if internal speech is impaired in quiet by articulatory
suppression then any difference between noise and quiet should be abolished in the
suppression conditions. Millar found that, when an item was scored as correct even if
recalled in the wrong position, there was no main effect of noise or interaction between
noise and suppression conditions. However, there was a significant interaction between
noise, days and halves of sessions. On the first day, subjects did worse in noise than quiet
on the second half of the session. On the second day, subjects in quiet started off better
than those in noise but their performance declined, whereas, those working in noise
improved in the second half of the session. The effect of noise on the first day was due to
the non-suppression conditions and this is what the internal masking theory would predict.
The masking theory cannot account for the improvement in noise in the second half of the
second day.
A different pattern of results was obtained when items were scored as correct only when
they were in the correct position. In this analysis, noise interacted with days, session halves
and suppression conditions. On the first day, noise had no effect in the non-suppression
conditions but improved recall in the correct position in the suppression conditions in the
second half of the session. On the second day, subjects in quiet started off better than those
in noise when there was no suppression but there was no reliable effect of noise in the
suppression conditions.
A major problem with most studies of order recall is that recall of order cannot be
assessed independently of item recall. It has been shown that memory for order can be
tested independently of memory for items, using a small fixed set of items and presenting
them in different orders on successive trials (e.g. Healy, 1975). Wilding & Mohindra (1980)
used this technique to investigate the effects of noise and articulatory suppression on
ordered recall of acoustically confusable and non-confusable lists. When articulation was
suppressed, ordered recall was equally good for both types of list in noise and quiet. In the
non-suppression conditions, noise improved the confusable lists but not the
non-confusable. They explained this in terms of increased use of internal speech in noise.
They also carried out some studies in which subjects spoke the letters out loud and. in two
experiments, noise improved recall of order but only in non-articulation conditions.
The main aim of the present study was to examine the relevance of experiment duration
for the relationship between noise and recall of order. Recently, it has been shown that
moderate intensity noise (80-85 dB) can affect performance (see Broadbent. 1981, for a
review) and that tasks using verbal materials are particularly susceptible to noise effects.
This feature of the tasks made it initially attractive to consider noise effects in terms of
changes in the use of internal speech. Alternatively, one can suggest that such tasks are
sensitive because they offer a variety of different strategies, and shifts of dominance or
preference of strategies can occur. In certain experiments, an emphasis on internal speech,
repeating materials to oneself, will seem the strategy most likely to improve performance.
In other experiments, internal speech may seem undesirable and the direction of the noise
effect may change. An example of this is seen in Wilding & Mohindra’s third experiment,
where noise impaired recall of order. In Expts 2 and 4, where noise improved recall,
subjects tended to complete a rehearsal cycle before recalling the list but, in the third
experiment, the delay before recall was short and this strategy was discouraged, hence, the
noise effect changed.
Whether noise effects are due to strategic changes or not. it is still important to examine
the role of experiment duration. However, two versions of the strategy-change view of
noise effects suggest that the length of the noise exposure and task will be very important.
Noise may initially accentuate a particular strategy but cease to do so after a few lists. This
 Noise and order information 85

initial difference in strategy has been shown in areas other than noise research. Schwartz &
Wiedel (1978) showed that subjects of high and low verbal ability used different strategies
initially but that these differences were short-lived. Another version of the strategy-change
theory suggests that subjects in noise may be less flexible (noise may reduce the tendency to
change from one strategy to another). In certain tasks, subjects may have to keep adapting
to changes and, hence, one might expect the noise effect to change with experiment
duration. The first experiment investigated the relevance of experiment duration for the
relationship between noise and recall of the order of a fixed set of items.

Experiment 1
Method
Six letters were presented, one after another, on a television monitor and each letter was on the
screen for 2 s. There was a 5 s delay between the last letter and ‘ **♦*’, which was the signal for the
subject to write down the letters, in order. The letters were the same on every trial, DHJKRZ, and
the subjects learnt the set before starting the experiment. The letters were presented in a random
order on each trial. Before starting the experiment, each subject was given two practice trials (in
quiet) and the experimenter checked that the subjects were writing the letters down in order and not
using some other strategy, such as writing down the last letter first and working backwards. Each
subject did 20 trials in quiet and 20 in noise. The two sessions were approximately a week apart and
were at the same time of day. Subjects were tested in either the order quiet noise or noise-quiet.
Continuous free-field noise was used and the sound level in the noise conditions was 85 dBC with
equal levels per octave ( + 1 dB) from 125 4000 Hz. The sound level in the quiet condition was
55 dBC.

Subjects
The subjects were 19 female members of the Oxford Subject Panel and they were paid for
participating in the experiment.

Results
Letters were scored as correct if they were recalled in the same position as they had been
presented. The mean number of errors per trial is shown in Fig. 1 for each of the 20 trials
for both noise and quiet conditions.
This shows that performance was generally very good and, also, that the effect of noise
changed with experiment duration. Noise produced a slight improvement in the first half of
the session but then impaired recall of order in the second half. The mean number of errors
for each half-session in noise and quiet are shown in Table 1. (Maximum possible mean
errors per half = 60).
As performance was generally very good, arc sine transformed error scores were used in
the following analyses. In the first analysis, the following factors were distinguished: noise
conditions, serial position of letters (both within the subject) and order of noise treatments
(between subjects). It has been shown that it is often very important which noise condition
is encountered first. For example, subjects starting in noise may perform at a lower level
than those starting in quiet and they may stay at this level even when tested in quiet. Such
an effect would be represented here by an effect of order of noise treatments. Changes from
treatment 1 to treatment 2, such as practice effects, would be represented by a noise x order
of noise interaction. An analysis of variance showed that the only significant effects were
the main effects of noise (F=4-52, d.f. = 1, 17, P < 0 05) and serial position (F = 5-63,
d.f. = 5, 85, P < 0 001). This represented the poorer recall of order in noise than quiet and
the increase of errors from serial position 1 to position 5, with a reduction in errors at
position 6. In a second analysis, the serial position factor was replaced by halves of the
task. A significant interaction between noise and halves of the task was obtained
86 Andrew P. Smith

0-6 -
f
os-
t

Trials
Figure 1. Mean errors per trial for each of 20 trials in the noise and quiet conditions. • •
noise; o—o, quiet.

Table 1. Mean errors in the first and second halves of the quiet and noise conditions

Quiet Noise

1st half 2nd half 1st half 2nd half

5-63 5 05 5-05 09

(F — 5-47, d.f. — I. 17, P < 0 05) and this showed that the overall impairment in noise was
entirely due to the second half of the session.

Discussion
This experiment showed that time on task is very important in determining the effects of
noise on recall of order. It is important to determine whether the decrement found in noise
in the second half of the session is due to previous exposure to the noise, practice at the
task or both. Hartley (1973) examined the effect of prior noise or prior performance on
five-choice serial reaction. He concluded that the effect of noise was cumulative, because
prior exposure to noise was found to produce very adverse effects when the serial reaction
task was carried out only in the last 20 min of the 40 min exposure. This is in comparison
with performance in the last 20 min of a 40 min serial reaction test where only the last
20 min were accompanied by noise (the former condition is worse than a 20 min serial
reaction test with no noise at all).
Daee & Wilding (1977) suggested that noise increases trace strength and increases the
strength of association between items. This may lead to an improvement in recall of order.
However, if successive lists consist of identical or similar items presented in different
orders, there is the possibility that the later lists will be impaired by proactive interference
from earlier lists. Hamilton, Hockey & Quinn (1972), using an A-B-A paired associate
learning task, found that retroactive interference was decreased when noise was presented
 Noise and order information 8 7

during the learning of list A but increased when noise was played during list B. In the
present study, the poorer performance in noise in the second half of the session could be
due to the greater interference from earlier lists. If this is the case, one would expect that
both noise and previous practice at the task would be necessary to produce the second-half
decrement in noise. Obviously, there can be no interference if there have been no previous
lists and the noise is necessary to increase the interference from earlier items. Expt 2
examines the effects of previous exposure to noise and previous practice at the task on the
effects of noise on recall of order.

Experiment 2
Four groups of ten subjects carried out the order recall task used in Expt 1. Two of the
groups were given 10 practice trials (in quiet) before the experimental test (10 trials), and
one of these groups carried out the test in quiet (practice/quiet group) and the other carried
out the test in 85 dBC noise (practice/noise group). Two other groups were exposed to
5 min of 85 dBC noise before carrying out the test trials and one of these groups carried
out the test trials in quiet (previous noise/quiet group), whereas, the other group carried
out the test trials in noise (previous noise/noise group).
Instructions and stimuli for the order recall task were identical to the previous
experiment.

Subjects
The subjects were 40 female members of the Oxford Subject Panel and they were tested
individually.

Results
Performance was generally very good and the average error rate was about 10 per cent.
The mean number of errors in the various conditions are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Mean errors in the various conditions in Expt 2

Previous practice Previous noise

Test Test Test Test

in quiet in noise in quiet in noise

7-9 4-8 8-9 51

An analysis of variance distinguishing the pre-test conditions (noise vs. practice) and the
test conditions (noise vs. quiet) was carried out on the arc sine transformed error scores.
Neither of the main effects nor their interaction reached significance (Pre-test: F < 1 ; Test:
F = 109, d.f. = 1, 36, P = 0-3; Pre-test x test: F < 1).
General discussion
The two experiments, taken together, show that the combined effect of prior testing and
the presence of noise produce a decrement in the recall of order of a small, fixed set of
items, whereas, the noise decrement is not found when there has been previous testing in
the absence of noise or previous noise in the absence of testing. The explanation of this
result is less clear. It is possible that the decrement is produced by noise increasing the
interference from preceding lists. If this impairment does depend on interference from
previous lists, it could be reduced by changing the set of items in the second half (see
88 Andrew P. Smith

Wickens, 1970, 1972, for a detailed discussion of release from proactive interference). This
needs to be tested in a further experiment.
Although these experiments have demonstrated the importance of experiment duration
in determining the direction of noise effects, it is obvious that this cannot, by itself, account
for all the discrepant results. Indeed, studies of the effects of noise on order show that the
effects of noise are easily modified by changes in other task parameters. In this respect,
they are similar to data from other sources (e.g. see Smith, Jones and Broadbent, 1981, for
a discussion of the importance of task parameters in modifying the effects of noise on
recall of categorized lists). Lewis (1981) has considered the importance of task requirements
on the effects of noise on rehearsal and semantic processing. She states that noise does not
necessarily increase rehearsal (or reduce semantic processing) in general but only under
certain experimental conditions. One possibility is that noise biases attention towards the
dominant strategy which in turn is influenced by task requirements.’ Smith (cited by
Broadbent, 1981) has put forward a similar view to explain the effects of moderate levels of
noise on performance in general. However, there are alternatives to this strategic-change
view of noise effects. One could suggest that the variation in the noise effects shows that
there are no reliable effects of noise on human performance. It is argued that this is not the
case. Alternatively it is possible that noise may produce specific effects but that these may
only be apparent when a task is performed in a particular way. Further experimentation is
required to determine whether the dependence of noise effects on task parameters
represents a choice between strategies or some hidden effect revealed only by certain
strategies. Similarly, further experiments are required to determine whether noise effects are
continuing, appear only in initial coping with the task, or appear later in the task, as in the
present study.

Acknowledgement
This work was supported by a grant from the Social Science Research Council.

References
Broadbent, D. E. (1979). Human performance in noise. In C M. Harris (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.
Daee, S. & Wilding. J. M. (1977). Effects of high intensity white noise on short-term memory for position in a list
and sequence. British Journal of Psychology, 68. 335-349.
Davies, D. R. & Jones. D. M. (1975). The effects of noise and incentive upon attention in short-term memory.
British Journal of Psychology. 66, 61 -68.
Ford, A. (1929). Attention-automatization: an investigation of the transitional nature of mind, American Journal
of Psychology, 41. 1-32.
Hamilton, P., Hockey. G. R. J. & Quinn, J. G. (1972). Information selection, arousal and memory. British Journal
of Psychology, 63, 181-189.
Hartley. L. R. (1973). Effect of prior noise or prior performance on serial reaction. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 101. 255-261,
Healy, A. F. (1975). Coding of temporal-spatial patterns in short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behaviour, 14, 481-495.
Hockey. G. R. J. & Hamilton, P. (1970). Arousal and information selection in short-term memory. Nature.
London, 226, 866-867.
Lewis, E. K. (1981). Does noise increase rehearsal? Presented at the Arousal and Memory Workshop of The British
Psychology Society, Cognitive Section, Bedford College, University of London.
Millar, K. (1979). Noise and the ‘rehearsal-masking’ hypothesis. British Journal of Psychology, 70. 565-577.
Poulton, E. C. (1977). Continuous noise masks auditory feedback and inner speech. Psychological Bulletin. 84,
977-1001
Salame, P. & Wittersheim, G. (1978). Selective noise disturbance of the information input in short-term memory.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 693-704.
Schwartz, S. & Wiedel, T. C. (1978). Individual differences in cognition: Relationship between personality and
memory. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, 217-225.
 Noise and order information 89
Smith, A. P., Jones, D. M. & Broadbent, D. E. (1981). The effects of noise on recall of categorised lists. British
Journal of Psychology, 72, 299-316.
Wickens, D. D. (1970). Encoding categories of words: An empirical approach to meaning. Psychological Review,
77, 1-15.
Wickens, D. D. (1972). Characteristics of word encoding. In A. W. Melton & E, Martin (eds), Coding Processes
in Human Memory. Washington, D.C. : Winston.
Wilding, J. M. & Mohindra, N. (1980). Effects of sub-vocal suppression, articulating aloud and noise on sequence
recall. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 247-261.

Received 9 June 1981 ; revised version received 25 January 1982

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Andrew Smith, MRC Perceptual and Cognitive Performance Unit,
Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton BNI 9QG, UK.