Applied Acoustics 168 (2020) 107432

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Acoustics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apacoust

An annoyance-related SNQ for the assessment of airborne sound

insulation for urban-type sounds.
Daniel de la Prida a,⇑, Antonio Pedrero b, María Ángeles Navacerrada b, Alexander Díaz-Chyla b
a
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
b
Grupo de Investigación en Acústica Arquitectónica, Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Avda. Juan de Herrera, 4, Madrid 28040,
Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The sound insulation provided by a certain construction element is usually presented through Single-
Received 11 February 2020 Number Quantities (SNQs). These SNQs are global values used to summarize the sound insulation that
Received in revised form 8 April 2020 a construction element has as function of the frequency. Although there are standardized SNQs, whose
Accepted 13 May 2020
calculation is described in the ISO 717–1 and ASTM E413-16 standards, there is not enough agreement
Available online 10 June 2020
on whether these SNQs are representative of the way humans perceive.
The purpose of this research is to assess the degree of correlation between the annoyance perceived by
Keywords:
humans and the most relevant existing SNQs for a set of façade insulation elements and urban-type
Subjective perception
Annoyance
sound samples. Likewise, the purpose is also to evaluate whether certain frequency bands have more
Sound insulation influence than others on the perception of annoyance. Furthermore, to propose a reference curve for
Single number quantities the calculation of a SNQ that is representative of the annoyance perceived by humans when faced with
sounds of an urban nature.
To this end, a 2-alternative choice (2-AC) listening test was carried out by 119 participants. In this test,
participants had to listen to stimuli in pairs and select the stimulus that was most annoying to them. The
stimuli were obtained by filtering different sound samples with the sound insulation of different con-
struction elements. In particular, five sound samples were used for this listening test: four urban-type
sound samples as well as pink noise. Also, the sound insulation of six façade insulation elements was
used.
The results of this listening test were then analyzed using Thurstonian models and the distance mea-
sure d’ (d-prime) was obtained for each comparison. Finally, an optimized reference curve for urban-type
sounds Lopt
urban was calculated based on the results of the listening test by means of a Sequential
Quadratic Programming (SQP) optimization algorithm.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction sound protection provided by the entire sound spectrum of an

Sound insulation is one of the most important features of build-
ing construction elements. Depending on the nature and the instal-
lation of the materials, the transmission loss they are able to
provide may vary depending on the frequency. Describing the
sound protection provided by construction elements from a set
of frequency values can be very useful at times, but it can also be
tedious. For this reason, as stated in [1,2], as early as the 1960s
in the 20th century, methods have been studied to obtain a
Single-Number Quantity (SNQ) that was representative of the
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: d.delaprida@alumnos.upm.es (D. de la Prida).
insulating element.
Several SNQs have been proposed and different studies have
proved that the relationship between some of these SNQs and
the subjective perception of loudness is rather high [3–5]. How-
ever, with regard to annoyance, several studies have come to dif-
ferent conclusions. While some argue that the correlations for
loudness and annoyance are similar and rather high [3,5], others
show that the correlation between the existing SNQs and annoy-
ance is significantly lower than those obtained for loudness [4].
As described in ISO 717-1 [6] as well as in the ASTM E413-16
[7], the calculation of these SNQs is based on the comparison of
the spectral behavior of a certain insulation element to a reference
curve. Additionally, the ISO 717-1 describes two different spectral
adaptation terms to try to improve the description of the insulation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2020.107432
0003-682X/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 D. de la Prida et al. / Applied Acoustics 168 (2020) 107432
behavior of an element depending on the spectral features of the
incident noise. Little research has been done, however, to assess
whether the focus should be on modifying the reference curve or
the spectra used for the calculation of the spectral adaptation
terms and if so, what changes would be necessary to improve the
relationship between the subjective perception and the Single-
Number Quantities.
The purpose of this research is to evaluate the annoyance per-
ceived by a significant sample of participants when presented with
urban sound samples filtered by common sound insulation ele-
ments used in the construction of façades. Further, to determine
the relevance of each spectral band in the perception of annoyance
and to obtain a more representative SNQ than those existing.
For this purpose, a two-alternative choice (2-AC) listening test
was conducted [8], in which a sample of 119 participants reported
their perceived annoyance when listening to five different types of
sound virtually insulated by the Sound Reduction Index (SRI) of six
different façade insulation elements. Then, the results of this lis-
tening test were analyzed by means of Thurstonian models and
the correlation between the subjective judgments and several
existing SNQs was obtained. Further, the results of the Thurstonian
analysis were used as input in a SQP (Sequential Quadratic Pro-
gramming) optimization algorithm, and five different optimized
reference curves were obtained, one for each sound type. Finally,
an average optimized reference curve Lopt
urban was proposed, being
highly representative of the subjective perception of annoyance for
the chosen urban sounds .
2. Historical perspective
The first attempts to achieve a Single-Number Quantity that
would representatively describe the sound insulation were based
on one or several arithmetic averages (AA) of the sound insulation
in the range of frequencies between 100 and 3000 Hz [9]. However,
it soon became apparent that this procedure could give the same
SNQ values to several insulation elements with very different spec-
tral features. Surprisingly, many years later, some studies [3,10,11]
have pointed out that the AA index, while it cannot be considered
better than the standardized SNQs, does not perform as poorly as
initially thought.
The next approach, which is the one used so far, was to establish
a comparative method that would allow to obtain a rating of the
insulation of a certain element by the comparison with a reference,
whose acoustic behavior was considered good. A reference curve
was proposed, which was a smoothed version of the sound reduc-
tion index (SRI) of a 9-inch brick wall, which was typically used for
the separation between dwelling units in the mid-20th century
[1,2] in Europe but also in the United States.
Surveys were then carried out to assess the appropriateness of
this reference curve in different countries such as England, Swe-
den, Holland and France [12–15]. While some of these studies rein-
forced the idea of the use of this type of traditional brick wall as a
reference curve, as presented in [1], others highlighted that the use
of this reference curve could be insufficient to describe the percep-
tion of sound protection perceived by the tenants.
However, Single-Number Quantities based on this comparative
method and reference curve have been widely used to describe the
sound insulation of construction elements over the years.
Many studies have then been carried out to determine the ade-
quacy of existing SNQs to the subjective perception of the popula-
tion [3–5,11,16–21]. A deeper review of some of these studies can
be found in [22].
These studies have mainly focused on determining which is the
most appropriate SNQ and also on whether the calculation range,
which is historically set between 100 and 3150 Hz, should be
extended to 50 Hz and 5000 Hz respectively for the lower and
the higher bounds. In recent years, the scientific dialogue has
mainly focused on whether it is necessary to add frequency bands
below 100 Hz or not. As described in [22], while for impact noise
the general trend tends to propose the inclusion of the bands in
the range between 50 and100 Hz, for airborne sound insulation
there is no generalized trend. While several studies show that
the inclusion of the low frequency bands does not improve or even
worsens the description, others reinforce their adequacy specially
for music sounds.
On the contrary, little research has been carried out to deter-
mine whether the calculation method and the reference curve to
which the construction elements are compared should be modi-
fied. In this sense, the early works of van den Eijk [23] and North-
wood [24] are especially relevant, trying to propose more
representative curves of loudness and annoyance. Also, the more
recent work of Scholl is worth mentioning [25], aimed at proposing
further reference curves for inclusion in the at that time work-in-
progress ISO 16717–1. Finally, the most recent Virjonen’s work
[26], which proposed a reference curve for airborne sound insula-
tion taking into account living sounds by means of an automatic
optimization method, is also noteworthy.
These proposals have, however, not been reinforced or refuted
by other researches with exception of [25], whose proposals have
been studied in [20,27,28].
A SNQ that is highly representative of subjective perception
hasn’t been defined yet, which means that there is currently no
consensus on which SNQ should be used to describe the sound
insulation of an element. Consequently, as developed in [29,30],
different SNQs are used in Europe to assess the sound insulation
depending on the country. It is therefore of great interest to per-
form further experiments with additional types of sound to prove,
improve or complement the already proposed reference curves
enhancements with the aim of obtaining a unique SNQ that is
highly representative of the perception of airborne sound
insulation.
3. Material and methods
In this section, brief information is first given about the design
and performance of the listening test. Further details and deeper
explanations about these facts can be found in [8], in which the
methodology used for this listening test is explained at length.
However, information is given here about the sound samples and
insulation elements, as well as about the sample of participants.
Detailed information is then given about the analysis by means
of Thurstonian models.
Finally, the used optimization procedure, which is an adapta-
tion of that proposed by Virjonen in [26], is explained in detail.
3.1. Listening test
3.1.1. Study design and performance
A listening test was conducted in an insulated booth, located at
the Technical School of Architecture of the Technical University of
Madrid (Spain), by using Sennheiser HD650 headphones. The fre-
quency response of the headphones was compensated and the
playback chain calibrated to assure a correct playback of the used
sound samples. Further details about the environmental conditions
and the equipment can be found in [8].
Following a 2-AC procedure, 119 participants were presented
with different comparisons, each comprising two different stimuli
and were asked to select the sample that, in their opinion, was the
most annoying. They were also able to answer ”I don’t know/ I
don’t perceive difference” if they were not able to make a clear
 D. de la Prida et al. / Applied Acoustics 168 (2020) 107432 3

statement. These comparisons were performed in random order to
assure statistical independence.
The stimuli compared by the participants were five different
sound samples filtered by the SRI of six different façade insulation
elements, making a total number of 30 stimuli, each stimuli being a
combination of one of those five sound samples and one of the six
insulation elements. Considering a pairwise comparison strategy,
in which all possible combinations of stimuli are conducted, each
participant performed 15 comparisons (see Table 3) for each sound
sample and the process was repeated for the five different sound
samples. Therefore, each participant performed a total number of
75 comparisons.
In order to reduce the sources of bias that could affect the qual-
ity of the results, as well as to reduce their possible impact, the lis-
tening test was carried out following a predefined procedure. This
procedure helped to reduce the influence of various sources of bias,
as described in [8].
3.1.2. Participants
The participants were recruited mainly at the Superior Techni-
cal School of Architecture of the Technical University of Madrid by
email, phone call or visit. The potential participants were briefly
explained the procedure and the estimated duration of the exper-
iment. They were also explained that, although no compensation
would be given for their participation, a hearing level test would
also be performed and that they could get it printed and explained
for their information. More than 200 people, academic and non-
academic, were given with information about the test.
Finally, the listening test was performed by 119 people, from
which the 54.6% were women (N = 65) and the 45.4% were men
(N = 54). The age of the participants was gathered in ranges of five
years between the ranges ‘‘15–19 years” and ‘‘>=65 years”. The
exact age of the extreme cases is known. Therefore, it can be pre-
cisely stated that the participants were aged 19 to 71 years old.
Table 1 shows the different age ranges, the proportion of the
total amount of participants belonging to each range and the pro-
portion of women and men inside each range.
As it can be seen in Table 1, the age group ”20–24 years” was the
biggest one over all the others, although its participants repre-
sented only the 28.6% (N = 34) of the total. However, to ensure that
this higher proportion of participants wouldn’t have a significant
effect on the bias, a Student’s t-test was conducted for both the
age group ”20–24 years” and a group containing all other partici-
pants. The outcome of this test is presented in the Results section.
The test was performed by people from 13 different countries.
However, most of the participants were from Spain, bringing
together more than the 83% (N = 99) of the sample.
The test was anonymous, in order to safeguard the ethical integ-
rity of the experiment. Therefore, no sensitive information was
gathered from the participants. The participants were only asked
to fulfill a survey with the gender, age, nationality and level of
studies. Also, the test was innocuous, given the low sound levels
emitted. However, the participants were specified that they could
finish the experiment at any time in case they felt uncomfortable
or annoyed. Further information about these facts will be given
in the Listening test design section.
3.2. Sound samples
Five different sound samples were used in the experiment.
Given that the aim of the experiment was to address the correla-
tion between existing SNQs and the sound insulation for urban sit-
uations and to propose a better reference curve for these cases, the
selected sound samples were representative excerpts of different
urban noise situations recorded for this purpose in the city of
Madrid. In particular five different sound samples were used.
Two of the samples were binaural recordings of traffic noise at
two different road traffic conditions, under different proportions
of vehicle types and road speeds. Another sample was a binaural
recording of an aircraft flyover. The fourth sample was a binaural
recording of a common situation in a pedestrian commercial street,
during the passage of a small emergency vehicle sounding its siren.
Details about the recording, analysis and the criteria for the selec-
tion of these recordings can be found in [31,8].
Additionally, pink noise was used as a fifth sample during the
test. This sample was chosen for reference based on its flat spec-
trum in 1/3 octave bands and its stable and constant temporal
features.
Fig. 1 shows the 1/3 octave spectrum of the five sound samples
selected. As it can be seen, the spectral behavior of each sound type
is very different, although the first four are representative samples
of usual sounds in urban areas. This fact can help to assess whether
the proposal of a unique reference curve might be done or not.
Also, the analysis of the results for the Siren sound sample can lead
to interesting conclusion given the fact that its main energy contri-
bution is centered in the 1/3 octave frequency band of 1250 Hz.
This frequency band is considered (among other adjacent bands)
to be particularly relevant in the reference curves currently in

Table 1
Ranges of age and proportion of participants, men and women, belonging to each
range.

Age Women Men % of part.

(inside range) (inside range) in range
15–19 years 100.0 0.0 0.8
20–24 years 58.8 41.2 28.6
25–29 years 66.7 33.3 7.6
30–34 years 28.6 71.4 5.9
35–39 years 64.3 35.7 11.8
40–44 years 44.4 55.6 7.6
45–49 years 60.0 40.0 8.4
50–54 years 60.0 40.0 8.4
55–59 years 38.5 61.5 10.9
60–64 years 50.0 50.0 6.7
>= 65 years 50.0 50.0 3.4
Fig. 1. 1/3 octave spectrum of the five sound samples used during the listening test.
4 D. de la Prida et al. / Applied Acoustics 168 (2020) 107432
use. Therefore, high correlations are to be expected between the
subjective judgments for this sound sample and the existing SNQs.
3.3. Façade insulation elements
Six SRIs (W1 to W6) were selected for comparison in the listen-
ing test. As described in detail in [8], the window, that is, the ele-
ment that is typically fixed in the hollow part of the façade, is
usually the weakest element of it. Therefore, the six SRIs were cho-
sen to belong to three different window types with a rolling shut-
ter fixed, both with the rolling shutter extended and retracted.
Therefore, each façade insulation element comprised a window
from a specific type regarding its glazing and frame, the box of
the shutter, and the shutter itself either extended or retracted.
The study of the shutter position on perception, however, is not
addressed in this article.
The selection of this six elements was based on three principles:
1. The selected elements had to be representative of façade insu-
lation elements commonly used in construction.
2. The selected elements had to be in a sufficiently small range to
allow the perceptual assessment of subtle differences in terms
of the existing SNQs.
3. The spectra of the selected elements had to be significantly dif-
ferent even when their SNQs were very similar.
Taking these conditions into account can help to draw very rele-
vant conclusions about the perception of the different elements,
given that the effect of the spectral difference on perception can
be evaluated, as well as the extent to which subtle differences in
the existing SNQs are perceived by the participants.
From a database of laboratory measurements, carried out by the
Laboratory for Acoustics and Vibration of the Technical University
of Madrid over several years, a SRI was obtained for each window
type and shutter position, by averaging all existing measurements
for windows of the same category and same shutter position. This
procedure allowed obtaining highly representative SRIs for each of
the six configurations. Further information about these measure-
ments and the effect of the rolling shutter on the SRI of these
façade elements can be found in [32,33].
The frequency range was fixed in the range between 100 and
5000 Hz since previous researches have already pointed out the
low influence of the frequency bands below 100 Hz on the subjec-
tive perception of airborne sound insulation [16,17,19].
The final SRIs were in the range between 32 and 39 dB (Rw ),
therefore having a DRw ¼ 7. The main features of each façade insu-
lation element are shown in Table 2.
The 1/3 octave SRI for each of the six façade insulation elements
is shown in Fig. 2.
3.4. Test procedure
The listening test was carried out on a one person per date
basis. Therefore, only one participant could perform the listening
test at the same time.
Table 2
Nomenclature, physical features (frame material, opening type, drum filling and shutter position) and Rw for the six different elements selected.
Element Frame material Opening
W1 PVC Sliding
W2 PVC Sliding
W3 PVC Sliding
W4 PVC Sliding
W5 PVC Openable
W6 PVC Openable
First, the participant was welcome on a specific date and time
that had been previously appointed. The participant was then
invited to enter the insulated booth and asked to answer an anony-
mous demographic survey about age, gender, nationality and level
of studies. This survey was carried out for two reasons. First, know-
ing factors such as the gender and age of the participants can be
helpful on addressing whether these factors can evoke subtle dif-
ferences in the perception. Second, performing this easy and non-
acoustic task prior to the listening test might help the participants
to get used to the test environment, before beginning the listening
test.
Once the survey was completed, a document was provided,
where the procedure of the listening test as well as safety and eth-
ical information were given. As the participant was finished with
the reading, the experimenter asked if everything was clearly
understandable and assisted the participant aseptically if questions
arose.
Next, the participant was presented, on the computer screen,
with the answer form, in which the judgments had to be given,
and a short training was carried out comprising two dummy pair-
wise comparisons. If the familiarization process ended without
incidents, the listening test could begin.
The listening test was performed as five individual tests, one for
each type of sound, with a short break between each individual
test. During the break, in a relaxed manner and avoiding it to look
as part of the evaluation, the participant was interviewed about the
test that had just been done. Sometimes interesting information
arose from these interviews and was, therefore, noted for future
consultation.
Once the five tests were completed, all participants were given
a screening audiometry to assess their hearing capabilities. Each
participant received the result of the audiometry as well as an
explanation about the quality of hearing.
3.5. Analysis of the results
Different analysis methods are described in detail in the previ-
ous article, regarding methodology [8], pointing out the fact that
an analysis by means of Thurstonian models allows obtaining more
precise, specific and lower influenced by bias information from the
listening test. In this paper, Thurstonian models are used as the
main method for the analysis of the results.
Furthermore, for the enhancement of the reference curve, an
optimization method was used, based on the one proposed in
[26]. The procedure was, however, adapted to allow the use of
the Thurstonian measure of distance as the subjective response
variable and considering the objective difference in terms of SRI
as the input data used for the improvement of the reference curve.
3.5.1. Thurstonian models
Thurstonian models consider that the perception of intensity of
a stimulus can be described as a normal probability distribution,
given that in some cases the same stimulus will be perceived to
be more intense than in others, depending mostly on physiological
variables [34]. Therefore, the difference between two confusable
Drum Shutter configuration Glazing Rw
Empty Retracted 4/ 12/ 8 32
Empty Extended 4/ 12/ 8 36
Polystyrene Retracted 4/ 12/ 8 35
Polystyrene Extended 4/ 12/ 8 39
Polystyrene Retracted 4/ 12/ 4 36
Polystyrene Extended 4/ 12/ 4 37
 D. de la Prida et al. / Applied Acoustics 168 (2020) 107432 5

Table 3
Elements judged by the participants in each comparison and nomenclature.

Comparison C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15

Element 1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 W2 W3 W3 W3 W4 W4 W5
Element 2 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W3 W4 W5 W6 W4 W5 W6 W5 W6 W6

The calculation of the results based on Thurstonian models was

carried out by using the sensR package [35] for the R software [36].
The particular procedure followed by this package for the calcula-
tion of the Thurstonian values is described by the authors of the
package in [37].

3.5.2. Optimization procedure

An SQP optimization procedure was used for the enhancement
of the reference curve. This optimization procedure is based on the
one described in [26]. As stated in [26], this optimization proce-
dure is aimed at minimizing a function S(L), Eq. (1), taking into
account that S can be computed as shown in Eq. (2).
minL SðLÞ ð1Þ

X
n
S¼ ðyi
ðA þ Bxi ÞÞ2 ð2Þ
i¼1

In Eq. (2), yi is the response variable (i.e. which is expected to be

Fig. 2. 1/3 octave SRI for each of the six façade insulation elements.
stimuli can be defined through the distance between the probabil-
ity distributions of the intensity of the two stimuli. If the intensity
of both stimuli is very similar, and they are highly confusable, their
distributions will overlap, whereas they will separate as the per-
ceptual difference between the stimuli increases.
Thurstonian models define the Thurstonian measure d’ as the
distance between the probability distributions of the intensity of
two stimuli, in terms of standard deviations. Consequently, values
close to 0 in this descriptor represent that the stimuli are very sim-
ilar to each other regarding the consulted feature, describing a
greater difference as the metric moves away from 0.
The Thurstonian models are very useful for the variety of differ-
ence testing methods since a particular model can be developed
that takes into account the peculiarities of each testing method.
This fact supposes an additional advantage over other analysis
methods when used in conjunction with a 2-AC test method, since
it allows the ”I don’t know/ I don’t perceive difference” judgments
to be taken into account. Other methods, however, can not take
into account these judgments and they have to be removed from
the pooled data prior to the analysis, which may increase the anal-
ysis bias.
Additionally, the use of this method allows to obtain a d’ mea-
sure for each of the comparisons performed by the participants
during the listening test, in comparison to other methods, which
only allow to obtain a measure for each insulation element under
obtained from input data after optimization) for each observation
i and xi is a variable that directly depends on the input data. In stud-
ies related to sound insulation this variable normally depends on
the SRI of the insulation elements.
During the experiment conducted in [26], the participants had
to mark on a scale from 1 to 10 the perceived annoyance evoked
by each stimulus independently. Consequently, yi was the scale
rating obtained for each insulation element averaged considering
all the participants. Given that 8 sound insulation elements were
used in that research and that through the scaling procedure each
insulation element was addressed independently, n = 8 (i.e. one
result of average scale rating for each insulation element). In our
research, yi also represents the results of the subjective judgments
given by the participants. However, considering that six insulation
elements were selected in our research and that 2-AC and Thursto-
nian models were used for the performance and analysis, n can be
calculated as described in Eq. (3) (i.e. one result of d’ for each com-
parison between insulation elements conducted by the partici-
pants; these comparisons, C1 to C15, are shown in Table 3),
where s is the number of insulation elements and k the amount
of elements compared at the same time, being 2 for a pairwise
comparison approach.
 
s s! 6!
n¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ 15 ð3Þ
k k!ðs
kÞ! 2!ð4!Þ
Likewise, while in [26] xi was computed as the SNQ following Eq.
(4), in which Lj represents the level of the reference curve L at the
frequency band j and in which Rij represents the SRI of the insula-
tion element i at the frequency band j, in our research the subjective
variable is a measure of the perceived difference between two
sound insulation elements in terms of annoyance. Therefore, the
variable to be optimized can not be intrinsic to a particular element
but to the difference between the compared elements.
X
K Lj X
K ðLj
Rij Þ

xi ¼ 10lg 1010
10lg 10 10 ð4Þ

study.
In addition to the distance metric, Thurstonian models allow
to obtain a measure of significance (p-value) as well as the lower
and upper confidence limits for d’, easing the estimation of
uncertainty.
j¼1 j¼1
Accordingly, in our optimization procedure, our xi was computed as
the difference of each possible two number combination of the xi
that was calculated in Eq. (4). Therefore, taking into account Eq.
6 D. de la Prida et al. / Applied Acoustics 168 (2020) 107432
(3), 15xi values were obtained, each of them for a possible combina-
tion i, in which K frequency bands were considered for the calcula-
tion. Since the frequency range was fixed between 100 and 5000 Hz,
K = 18.
Other than that, the procedure used to obtain the optimal refer-
ence curve has been programmed in MatlabÒ, using the Sequential
Quadratic Programming (SQP) algorithm and the same boundary
conditions as those described in the appendix of [26]. Also, the ref-
erence spectrum for the C adaptation term in the range between
100 and 5000 Hz was used as initial L guess in the algorithm fol-
lowing the rationale of [26]. The calculation of the variables A
and B in Eq. (2) also followed the formulations described in [26]
and are not described here in detail for the sake of extension, as
these variables also depend on secondary variables depending on
xi , yi and the relation between them.
This optimization procedure is applied independently to the
results obtained for each sound sample. Therefore, five optimized
reference curves are obtained, each of them being based on the
judgments given by the participants for each of the sound samples.
4. Results
This section presents the results of the different analyses that
have been carried out to obtain an optimized reference curve.
First, through a Student’s t-test analysis, the effect that the lar-
gest proportion of participants in the ”20–24 years” age range
could have on the bias is assessed. Then, the results of the analysis
of the participants’ judgments and their correlation with the exist-
ing SNQs are presented. Additionally, the results of optimizing the
reference curve of the sound insulation based on the listening test
judgments are shown. Finally, the obtained optimized curve is
compared with those defined in the standards and to that obtained
by [26] for living noises.
4.1. Student’s t-test
Since the age group ”20–24 years” had a higher proportion of
participants than the others, it was assessed whether the results
of d’ for that age group were significantly different from those of
the rest of the participants. The aim was to determine whether this
higher proportion could bias the calculation based on the pooled
data. For this purpose, d’ values were calculated for each compar-
ison (see Table 3) and each sound sample for two groups of partic-
ipants: the first one comprising the participants of the age group
”20–24 years” and the second one comprising the rest of the par-
ticipants. Then, a Student’s t-test analysis was performed on the
d’ values for each of these combinations to address the difference
between the two age groups.
This analysis reported that in only three of the 75 combinations
there was a significant difference between the two age groups.
These three combinations were:
 Comparison between insulation element W5 and W6 for the
Siren sound sample (p = 0.04, t = 2.109).
 Comparison between insulation element W4 and W5 for the
Pink sound sample (p = 0.02, t = 2.384).
 Comparison between insulation element W4 and W6 for the
Pink sound sample (p = 0.04, t = 2.101).
An overall Student’s t-test was also performed combining the data
from all sound samples and all comparisons for the two age groups.
The results showed that the two groups were equal regarding the
Thurstonian measure of distance d’ (p = 0.81, t = 0.24). Therefore,
the significant differences obtained for the three particular cases
did not contribute to an overall bias to the test.
4.2. Thurstonian Analysis
The results of the listening test are analyzed by means of
Thurstonian models. This analysis allows addressing, for each of
the comparisons performed by the participants, the difference per-
ceived between the two sound insulation elements compared. This
difference is shown by means of the Thurstonian measure of dis-
tance d’.
For the sake of simplicity, Table 3 shows the sound insulation
elements judged in each comparison, as well as a nomenclature
that will be used for each comparison in the rest of this section.
Table 4 shows the values for the Thurstonian measure of differ-
ence d’, calculated from the judgments of the listening test. Marked
with asterisks, the range of the p-value for each comparison is
given: one asterisk (*) is used for 0.05 < p < 0.1; two asterisks
(**) are used for 0.0001 < p < 0.05; three asterisks (***) are used
for p-value < 0.0001. Also, no asterisks are used for p > 0.05. There-
fore, the more asterisks are given, the higher the difference per-
ceived by the participants during the listening tests. In particular,
in those cases in which no asterisks are used it can be stated that
the two elements in a certain comparison were not significantly
different in terms of subjective perception of annoyance for a
95% significance level.
As it can be seen on Table 4, representative perceptual differ-
ence could be found by the participants for most comparisons.
Additionally, due to the high number of participants, the judg-
ments obtained for most comparisons have a high (**) or very high
significance (***), which allows drawing very relevant conclusions.
Also, from Table 4 several conclusions can be drawn regarding
the variability of the perceived difference between the insulation
elements for different sound types. While for some comparisons
(C3, C6, C7, C8, C13) the difference is clearly perceptible with a very
high significance (***), for others (C9, C12) the differences are
mostly not perceived. In addition, for some comparisons such as
C2, C4 and C15 the judgments vary widely depending on the spec-
tral features of each sound type, although this behavior is not very
common.
While for each particular sound sample different values of d’ are
obtained, which can vary significantly from one to another, the
tendency of the participants is to select the same element as the
most annoying in a generalized manner. This behavior highlights
the fact that the sound sample may have some influence on the
degree of perceived difference but is not that relevant as to create,
in a generalized way, dramatic changes in judgment to the partic-
ipants. However, the particular spectral features of the Siren sound
sample have a relevant impact on the perception of difference,
making it easier for the participants to address the differences
for this particular sound sample.
Table 4 can also be used to visually inspect the effect that the
differences, in terms of SRIs, have on the subjective perception of
annoyance and its relation with the existing SNQs. As an example,
Figs. 3 and 4, which show the overlap of the SRIs for the compar-
isons C6 and C11 and C2 and C4 respectively, are presented below
and inspected in conjunction with Table 4.
Fig. 3 shows the overlapped SRIs of the elements addressed by
the participants in two different comparisons (C6, C11) in which
the differences for the Rw are of 1 dB, as it can be drawn from
Table 2. In the left of Fig. 3 the spectral differences between W2
and W3 (C6) are shown. Furthermore, at the right of Fig. 3 the spec-
tral differences between W3 and W5 (C11) are shown. As it can be
seen at a glance, both figures have a similar behavior, in which one
of the elements provides higher sound insulation at lower frequen-
cies, while the other provides better sound insulation at higher fre-
quencies. In these two particular cases, those differences are
somehow compensated, making both elements in each comparison
to be addressed as similar regarding their SNQs. However, if a look
 D. de la Prida et al. / Applied Acoustics 168 (2020) 107432 7

Table 4
Values of the Thurstonian measure of difference, d’ (d-prime) for each comparison and sound sample. (*) 0.05 < p<0.1; (**) 0.0001 < p<0.05; (***) p < 0.0001; () p > 0.05.

Comparison Traffic 1 Traffic 2 Aircraft Siren Pink

C1 -0.36 ** 0.76 *** 0.57 *** -1.83 *** -0.71 ***
C2 -0.35 ** 0.16 0.06 -0.77 *** -0.75 ***
C3 -1.19 *** -1.08 *** -0.92 *** -2.27 *** -0.64 ***
C4 0.41 ** 0.11 0.09 -1.34 *** 0.53 **
C5 -0.84 *** -0.31 ** -0.43 ** -1.46 *** -0.01
C6 1.15 *** 0.92 *** 1.15 *** 1.09 *** 0.68 ***
C7 -0.69 *** -0.74 *** -0.70 *** -1.41 *** -0.59 ***
C8 1.81 *** 0.97 *** 1.78 *** 1.00 *** 0.94 ***
C9 -0.08 -0.05 -0.01 -0.85 *** -0.11
C10 -1.24 *** -0.61 *** -0.75 *** -2.00 *** -0.54 **
C11 1.65 *** 0.97 *** 1.23 *** 0.27 0.91 ***
C12 -0.03 0.29 0.21 -0.98 *** 0.00
C13 2.13 *** 1.41 *** 1.65 *** 1.50 *** 0.62 ***
C14 1.05 *** 1.33 *** 0.83 *** 0.40 ** 0.45 **
C15 -0.80 *** 0.05 -0.18 -1.16 *** -0.18

Fig. 3. Example cases in which the Rw is similar but the elements are clearly distinguishable by the participants. Upper figures represent the SRI for each element in the
comparison (Left: W2 and W3; Right: W3 and W5). Lower figures represent the difference between the SRI values between the two elements (DSRI).

is taken at Table 4, it can be seen that perceptual differences were
found to be significant for all the sound samples in the first case
and for four out of five sound samples in the second.
Also, Fig. 4 shows the overlapped SRIs for two comparisons (C2
and C4) in which the elements have differences higher than 2 dB
for the Rw , but are however not perceived as significantly different
for most sound types. In the left of Fig. 4 the spectral differences for
the comparison C2 are presented. In addition, in the right of Fig. 4
the spectral differences for the comparison C4 are presented.
As a summary, in all the presented cases, one of the elements in
each comparison provides much higher sound insulation in the
range of middle and high frequencies than the other. This higher
sound insulation from the middle to high frequencies is consistent
with the expected preference in terms of Rw but it does not follow
the subjective judgments given by the participants. However, in
the range of middle to low frequencies, an inversion is shown
regarding the insulation features of the compared elements, having
higher insulation the opposite element. Although in most cases this
change in behavior is small if compared to the large differences
found in the range of middle to high frequencies, it seems to have
a significant relevance when determining subjective annoyance.
8 D. de la Prida et al. / Applied Acoustics 168 (2020) 107432
Fig. 4. Example cases in which the Rw is different but the elements are not clearly distinguishable by the participants. Upper figures represent the SRI for each element in the
comparison (Left: W1 and W3; Right: W1 and W5). Lower figures represent the difference between the SRI values between the two elements (DSRI).
Having all of this into account it seems that the existing refer-
ence curves, which are giving more relevance to some frequency
bands than others, may not have a good agreement with the per-
ception of annoyance. It is, therefore, necessary to address the
influence that each frequency range has on the subjective percep-
tion of annoyance, in order to improve the SNQs in a way that bet-
ter represents the subjective annoyance.
4.3. Linear regression
In this section, linear regression is presented between the per-
ceived differences judged by the participants and the differences
in terms of the existing SNQs, to address the particular correlation
between the subjective judgments of annoyance and the most used
existing SNQs in the frequency range considered in this
experiment.
For this purpose, the d’ values were used as dependent variable
and the differences between each possible combination of insula-
tion elements in terms of the different SNQs were used as indepen-
dent variables.
Table 5 shows the correlation, by means of the goodness-of-fit
measure R2 , between each SNQ and each sound sample as well
as all these correlations on average for each SNQ (Column Avg).
These R2 values are presented corrected by the number of degrees
of freedom, to reduce as much as possible the dependence of the
correlation on the number of observations. Also, asterisks are used
in Table 5 to denote the degree of significance of each regression
value. The number of asterisks used to represent each range of sig-
nificance follows the above-mentioned criteria presented in
Table 4.
As it can be drawn from Table 5, the correlation between the
existing SNQs and the subjective perception of annoyance is fair
to good. In particular, the Rw is shown, on average, as the best
existing SNQ among those used in this article. This result strongly
supports previous researches [5,19] in which the Rw was also found
to be the best descriptor among those existing in most situations.
However, the correlation is no better than the 70% for the average
in the best case scenario basis, which still gives room for improve-
ment. These correlations are in good agreement with those pre-
sented in [26,4] even considering different sound samples,
insulation elements and methodologies for the performance of
the test as well as for the analysis of the results.
Especially interesting are the results for the sound sample Siren.
As it can be drawn from Table 5, the correlation between the sub-
jective judgments and the usual SNQs is higher for this sample for
all the tested SNQs, being especially relevant for the Rw , the
Rw þ C100
3150 , the Rw þ C100
5000 and the STC. Considering the spec-
tral features of the Siren sound sample and the relevance given by
the existing reference curve to the frequency bands in which this
sample has its main energetic contribution, these high correlations
were to be expected.
On the other hand, the correlation between the subjective judg-
ments for annoyance and the SNQs calculated on the basis of the
traffic reference curve (Tr) is rather low for all sound samples.
Especially remarkable are the results of the sound samples in
which vehicles are the main contribution (Traffic 1 and Traffic 2).
As it is stated in the ISO 717–1:2013 [6] there are two different
 D. de la Prida et al. / Applied Acoustics 168 (2020) 107432 9

Table 5
Regression coefficients (R2) for the linear regression between the subjective judgments and the selected existing SNQs for all sound samples.

SNQ Traffic 1 Traffic 2 Aircraft Siren Pink Avg

Rw 79.4 *** 62.4 ** 67.1 *** 84.8 *** 60.6 ** 70.9
Rw þ C100
3150 56.7 ** 59.3 ** 51.0 ** 72.0 *** 45.9 ** 57.0
Rw þ C100
5000 56.7 ** 59.3 ** 51.0 ** 72.0 *** 45.9 ** 57.0
Rw þ Ctr100
3150 28.0 ** 31.0 ** 22.0 ** 34.8 ** 34.5 ** 30.1
Rw þ Ctr100
5000 28.0 ** 31.0 ** 22.0 ** 34.8 ** 34.5 ** 30.1
STC 56.2 ** 52.3 ** 47.3 ** 66.9 *** 51.0 ** 54.7

spectral adaptation terms, which were developed to improve the

sound insulation characterization for types of sounds with certain
spectral features. In particular, the Ctr spectral adaptation term is
stated to be representative of sound samples such as those of urban
traffic and aircraft. However, as it can be drawn from Table 5 the
correlation between the SNQs for Ctr and the annoyance judgments
for sound samples Traffic 1, Traffic 2 and Aircraft are very low, with
correlation values of 28%, 31% at 22%, respectively.

4.4. Optimization of the reference curve

The optimization of the reference curve was carried out through

the adaptation of the method described in [26] to the results
obtained in the present listening test. As the addressed attribute
was the difference between the insulation elements regarding
the perceived annoyance, the response variable used in the opti-
mization procedure was the Thurstonian measure of distance (d’)
and the variable to be optimized was the difference between the
insulation elements in terms of the SNQ calculated using the refer-
ence curve L, which will vary from its initial guess, for this purpose.
The optimization procedure was carried out independently for
each sound sample. Therefore, five different optimized reference
level curves were obtained, one for each sound sample. Fig. 5
shows the optimized reference curve for each sound type, as well
as the average reference level curve, which was named Lopt
urban .
This average reference curve is simply calculated as the mean of
the optimized curves for the five sound samples.
As it can be seen in Fig. 5, the frequency range with the greatest
variation between the different reference curves is the one
between the bands with central frequencies located at 800 and
2500 Hz. Two different behaviors can be perceived in this range.
On the one hand, the optimized curves obtained by the Traffic 1,
Traffic 2 and Pink sound types significantly penalize the influence
of this range on the subjective perception of annoyance. On the
other hand, for the Aircraft and Siren sound types they follow a very
similar behavior, in this range, to that presented by the reference
curve described in ISO 717–1 [6] for the spectral adaptation term C.
Of great interest is the evaluation of the average curve Lopt
urban .
This curve, which is the average of the optimized curves obtained
for the five types of sound, follows almost perfectly the curve
obtained for the Traffic 1 sound sample. This sound sample con-
sisted on light traffic at speeds between 50 and 70 km/h.
Fig. 6 shows the spectral behavior of several reference curves of
interest. The grey and the black dashed lines represent the refer-
ence spectra for the calculation of the Rw þ Ctr100
5000 and the
Rw þ C100
5000 respectively, as stated in the ISO 717–1 [6]. The red
line shows the optimized reference spectra obtained in our
research for urban sound samples, Lopt
urban . The blue dashed and
dotted line shows the reference spectrum Lopt as proposed in
[26], in the range between 100 and 5000 Hz, which has been
renamed here to Lopt
liv ing to ease the comparison. Finally, the
”curve based on annoyance” following the experimental proce-
dures of van den Eijk has been taken from [1] and normalized to
meet the requirements of the reference level curves.
Fig. 5. Optimized reference spectra for each sound sample independently and on
average (Lopt
urban ).
As in can be seen in Fig. 6, the reference curve proposed for
urban noises in this article is in good agreement with that pro-
posed in [26], for the frequency bands between 500 and 2000 Hz.
Outside this range the behavior changes slightly, giving some more
relevance to lower frequency bands, which is highly expectable for
urban-type noises, due to the higher low frequency components of
this type of noise in comparison to that of the living noises. How-
ever, both curves follow the same trend in the whole frequency
range. Also, these curves are in very good agreement with the
curve proposed for annoyance based on the experiments of van
den Eijk, as shown in [1]. This fact is of great relevance considering
that this result was obtained following totally different procedures
already in the 1970s.
The standardized reference curves, therefore, seem to overesti-
mate the relevance of the central frequency bands on the percep-
tion of annoyance. The results of both our experiment and that of
[26] reinforce that these bands should not be given such impor-
tance and that this fact can have a great impact on the lack of cor-
relation between existing SNQs and the subjective judgments of
annoyance. Also, the results of both experiments highlight that
the range between 400 and 800 Hz should be considered with
greater relevance. This fact can also be pointed out from van den
Eijk’s curve [23,1].
From the comparison between the reference curve for Ctr and
that obtained in this research for urban noises, the low correlations
between the SNQs involving Ctr and the subjective judgments can
be easily understood. While the Ctr curve gives a very high
10 D. de la Prida et al. / Applied Acoustics 168 (2020) 107432
Fig. 6. Existing ISO 717–1:2013 [6] reference curves for C (black dashed) and Ctr
(gray dashed), this article proposal for urban noises (red), Virjonen’s reference curve
proposal for living noises [26] (blue dashed and dotted) as well as the reference
curve based in the results obtained by van den Eijk adapted to annoyance as shown
in [1] (brown dotted).
relevance to the lower frequency range, this behavior is not
observed in the subjective judgments. Also, the Ctr reference curve
gives the greatest relevance to the frequency range between 800
and 1600 Hz, and it is centered in 1000 Hz. In the proposed refer-
ence curve, this behavior also occurs but it is centered on 630 Hz.
Also, frequency bands under 200 Hz are not subjectively as rel-
evant as they are considered for both the C and the Ctr reference
curves. This fact highlights the low influence of the lower fre-
quency range on perception of airborne sound insulation, as it
has already been pointed out by several publications [16,19,22].
Certain conclusions can be drawn regarding the bands below
100 Hz, although they have not been included in this experiment.
Even for urban-type sounds, which have an important contribution
of low frequencies, it has been obtained that already frequencies
around 200 Hz and below are significantly less relevant than they
are considered in the existing reference curves. Given this trend
and considering the slope of the optimized curves below 200 Hz
it can also be expected that lower frequencies have even less rele-
vance, taking into account the fact that extremely abrupt changes
between adjacent bands are not allowed for the reference curves.
Furthermore, Table 6 shows the results of the R2 for each sound
sample and the Rw , Rw þ Copt
liv ing index as proposed by Virjonen
and Rw þ Copt
urban proposed in the present article. The reason
why Rw is included in Table 6 is that it led to the best correlation
among all the existing SNQs analyzed in this article, as it was pre-
sented in Table 5. The Rw þ Copt
liv ing is given to address the degree
of existing correlation between the curve proposed by Virjonen
Table 6
Regression values for each sound sample and the most correlated SNQs, Rw , Rw þ Copt
liv ing and Rw þ Copt
urban
SNQ Traffic 1
Rw 79.4
Rw þ Copt
liv ing 82.5
Rw þ Copt
urban 85.0
and the judgments of the participants of our listening test. This
allows to address the applicability of Virjonen’s curve to other sit-
uations different from those by which it was obtained. Finally, the
correlation for Rw þ Copt
urban is given to address the correlation
between the judgments for each sound sample and the proposed
urban reference curve calculated as the average of the individual
optimized reference curves for each sound sample.
As it can be seen in Table 6 the proposed urban reference curve
Lopt
urban allows obtaining better correlation coefficients for all
sound samples than the existing SNQs. In general, the greater cor-
relation values are obtained for Rw þ Copt
urban rather than for
Rw þ Copt
liv ing ; this is justified because of the greater relevance of
the lower frequency range in urban noises. However, it is interest-
ing that the correlation coefficient for Rw þ Copt
liv ing is higher than
that of Rw þ Copt
urban for the Siren sound sample. Given the spectral
features of this type of sound, more frequent in living noises, the
correlations are better for the curve proposed by Virjonen that
for the one proposed in this article.
Also, it can be seen that the reference curve proposed by Virjo-
nen works in general very well for the judgments of our listening
test. This fact is of great interest as it highlights the efficiency of
that curve for situations different from those for which the curve
was calculated.
Considering the high correlations obtained by these two refer-
ence curves for both living and urban sound samples, it might be
a good compromise to use an average curve based on these two.
5. Conclusions
A listening test has been carried out aiming to address the
degree of perceived annoyance evoked from the comparison
between pairs of stimuli comprising different SRIs and sound
samples.
It has been proved that the relation between existing SNQs and
the perception of annoyance of 119 participants was not good cor-
related in this case for most existing SNQs. Furthermore, it has
been described in greater detail that elements with very similar
or the same SNQs could be perceived as significantly different by
the participants and that elements with a significant difference in
terms of the SNQs could be perceived as not clearly distinguish-
able, suggesting through a deeper analysis that SNQs are not well
correlated with perception of annoyance.
Finally, the subjective judgments, analyzed by Thurstonian
models, were used as response variable for an optimization proce-
dure, similar to that presented by Virjonen in [26]. The results
showed a very good agreement with those presented by Virjonen
in the range between 100 and 5000 Hz. However, it is suggested
that a greater relevance of the lower frequency bands should be
given for the calculation of a SNQ for urban-type sounds. The
results of both researches were in good agreement with the early
experiments on this matter by van den Eijk, as presented in [1].
Therefore, these results could be relevant for future standardiza-
tion suggestions.
The great similarity between the reference curve proposed in
this article for urban-type sounds and that proposed by Virjonen
for living-type sounds reinforces the conclusions obtained in both
studies regarding the relevance of each frequency band in the per-
Traffic 2 Aircraft Siren Pink
62.4 67.1 84.8 60.6
69.2 73.7 92.5 57.9
72.8 74.6 88.8 65.0
 D. de la Prida et al. / Applied Acoustics 168 (2020) 107432
ception of annoyance. It is, however, strongly recommended per-
forming further experiments on this issue to increase the knowl-
edge in this field as well as to improve the optimization curves
through the open collaboration and sharing of the results between
different institutions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Daniel de la Prida: Conceptualization, Software, Methodology,
Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Visualization,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Antonio Ped-
rero: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investigation,
Resources, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,
Supervision. María Ángeles Navacerrada: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Investigation, Resources, Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition. Alexander Díaz-
Chyla: Conceptualization, Investigation, Resources, Writing - orig-
inal draft, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness (MINECO) and the Spanish Ministry of Science,
Innovation and Universities through the projects [BIA 2015-
68914-R] and [RTI2018-094656-B-I00].
References
[1] Yaniv SL, Flynn DR. Noise criteria for buildings: a critical view. 499. US Dept. of
Commerce, National Bureau of Standards: for sale by the Supt. of...; 1978.
[2] Moreno A. Factors influencing dB (A) ratings for sound insulation: incident
noise spectrum and shape of the transmission loss curve. J Sound Vibr 1984;97
(2):337–48.
[3] Park HK, Bradley JS. Evaluating signal-to-noise ratios, loudness, and related
measures as indicators of airborne sound insulation. J Acoust Soc Am 2009;126
(3):1219–30.
[4] Hongisto V, Oliva D, Rekola L. Subjective and objective rating of the sound
insulation of residential building façades against road traffic noise. J Acoust Soc
Am 2018;144(2):1100–12.
[5] Hongisto V, Oliva D, Keränen J. Subjective and objective rating of airborne
sound insulation–living sounds. Acta Acustica United Acustica 2014;100
(5):848–63.
[6] ISO 717-1:2013 Acoustics – Rating of sound insulation in buildings and of
building elements – Part 1: Airborne sound insulation. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization; 2013.
[7] E413-10: Classification for Rating Sound Insulation. West Conshohocken, PA,
USA: ASTM International; 2010.
[8] de la Prida D, Pedrero A, Ángeles Navacerrada M, Díaz-Chyla A. Methodology
for the subjective evaluation of airborne sound insulation through 2-AC and
Thurstonian models. Appl Acoust 2020;157:107011.
[9] Brandt O. European Experience with Sound-Insulation Requirements. J Acoust
Soc Am 1964;36(4):719–24.
[10] Tachibana H, Hamada Y, Sato F. Loudness evaluation of sounds transmitted
through walls–basic experiment with artificial sounds. J Sound Vibr 1988;127
(3):499–506.
11
[11] Park HK, Bradley JS, Gover BN. Evaluating airborne sound insulation in terms of
speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 2008;123(3):1458–71.
[12] Parkin PH. Field measurements of sound insulation between dwellings. 33. HM
Stationery Office; 1960.
[13] Gray PG, Cartwright A. Parkin PH. Noise in three groups of flats with different
floor insulations. HM Stationery Office; 1958.
[14] Bitter C, Weeren PV. Sound nuisance and sound insulation in blocks of
dwellings. Research Institute for Public Health Engineering TNO, Report No 24.
1955;.
[15] Josse R, Plagnol R, Coblentz A, Alexandre M. Etude sociologique de la
satisfaction des occupants de locaux conformes aux règles qui sont
supposées garantir un confort acoustique suffisant;.
[16] Hongisto V, Mäkilä M, Suokas M. Satisfaction with sound insulation in
residential dwellings–the effect of wall construction. Build Environ
2015;85:309–20.
[17] Kylliäinen M, Takala J, Oliva D, Hongisto V. Justification of standardized level
differences in rating of airborne sound insulation between dwellings. Appl
Acoust 2016;102:12–8.
[18] Park HK, Bradley JS. Evaluating standard airborne sound insulation measures
in terms of annoyance, loudness, and audibility ratings. J Acoust Soc Am
2009;126(1):208–19.
[19] Rychtáriková M, Muellner H, Chmelík V, Roozen NB, Urbán D, Garcia DP, et al.
Perceived loudness of neighbour sounds heard through heavy and light-
weight walls with equal Rw + C50-5000. Acta Acustica United Acustica
2016;102(1):58–66.
[20] Rychtáriková M, Roozen B, Müllner H, Stani M, Chmelík V, Glorieux C. Listening
test experiments for comparisons of sound transmitted through light weight
and heavy weight walls. Akustika 2013;19(1):8–13.
[21] Vian JP, Danner WF, Bauer JW. Assessment of significant acoustical parameters
for rating sound insulation of party walls. J Acoust Soc Am 1983;73
(4):1236–43.
[22] Vardaxis NG, Bard D. Review of acoustic comfort evaluation in dwellings: Part
III–airborne sound data associated with subjective responses in laboratory
tests. Build Acoust 2018;25(4):289–305.
[23] van den Eijk J. My neighbour’s radio. In: Proc. 3rd Int. Congress Acoustics;
1959. p. 1041–1044.
[24] Northwood TD. Sound insulation and the apartment dweller. J Acoust Soc Am
1964;36(4):725–8.
[25] Scholl W, Lang J, Wittstockh V. Rating of sound insulation at present and in
future. The revision of ISO 717. Acta acustica united with acustica. 2011;97
(4):686–698.
[26] Virjonen P, Hongisto V, Oliva D. Optimized single-number quantity for rating
the airborne sound insulation of constructions: Living sounds. J Acoust Soc Am
2016;140(6):4428–36.
[27] Monteiro C, Machimbarrena M, de la Prida D, Rychtarikova M. Subjective and
objective acoustic performance ranking of heavy and light weight walls. Appl
Acoust 2016;110:268–79.
[28] Mašović DB, Šumarac Pavlović DS, Mijić MM. On the suitability of ISO 16717–1
reference spectra for rating airborne sound insulation. J Acoust Soc Am
2013;134(5):420–5.
[29] Rasmussen B, Rindel JH. Sound insulation between dwellings–Descriptors
applied in building regulations in Europe. Appl Acoust 2010;71(3):171–80.
[30] Rasmussen B, Gutiérrez MM. Existing Sound Insulation Performance
Requirements and Classification Schemes For Housing Across Europe. In:
Towards a common framework in building acoustics throughout Europe;
2013. p. 25–48.
[31] de la Prida D, Pedrero A. Ángeles Navacerrada M, Díaz C. Relationship between
the geometric profile of the city and the subjective perception of urban
soundscapes. Appl Acoust 2019;149:74–84.
[32] Díaz C, Pedrero A. An experimental study on the effect of rolling shutters and
shutter boxes on the airborne sound insulation of windows. Appl Acoust
2009;70(2):369–77.
[33] Díaz C, Díaz A, Navacerrada MA. An experimental study on the effect of rolling
shutters on the field measurements of airborne sound insulation of façades.
Appl Acoust 2013;74(1):134–40.
[34] Lee HS, O’Mahony M. Sensory difference testing: Thurstonian models. Food Sci
Biotechnol 2004;13(6):841–7.
[35] Christensen RHB, Brockhoff PB. sensR–An R-package for sensory
discrimination; 2018.
[36] Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2013;.
[37] Christensen RHB, Lee HS, Brockhoff PB. Estimation of the Thurstonian model
for the 2-AC protocol. Food Quality Preference 2012;24(1):119–28.