ARTICLE

...................................

Discomfort estimation for aircraft cabin noise using linear

regression and modified psychoacoustic annoyance approaches
Yu Huang,a),b) Bingcong Lv, Ke Ni, and Weikang Jianga)
Institute of Vibration, Shock and Noise, School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China

ABSTRACT:
Appropriate sound quality models for noise-induced discomfort are necessary for a better acoustic comfort design in
the aircraft cabin. This study investigates the acoustic discomfort in two large passenger aeroplanes (i.e., planes A
and B). We recorded the noise at 21 positions in each aircraft cabin and selected 42 stimuli ranging from 72 to
81 dB(A) during the cruising flights. Twenty-four participants rated the noise discomfort by the absolute magnitude
estimation method. The discomfort values in the middle section of the aircraft cabin are 10% points higher than in
the front or rear section. The discomfort magnitude was dominated by loudness and influenced by roughness and
sharpness. A multiple linear (MA) discomfort model was established, accounting for the relationship between the
discomfort and sound quality metrics (i.e., loudness, sharpness, and roughness). The MA model estimated noise dis-
comfort better than the Zwicker and other (i.e., More and Di) psychoacoustic annoyance (PA) models. We modified
the coefficients of independent variables in the formulations of Zwicker, Di, and More PA models, respectively,
according to the present experimental results. The correlation coefficients between the estimated and measured val-
ues of the modified models were at least 20% points higher than the original ones.
C 2023 Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020838
V
(Received 29 November 2022; revised 15 August 2023; accepted 15 August 2023; published online 2 October 2023)
[Editor: Francesco Aletta] Pages: 1963–1976

I. INTRODUCTION Multiple linear regression (MLR) is widely used for

sound quality modelling of discomfort with one or several
Acoustic comfort, as the perceived state of well-being
psychoacoustic metrics. Zhang et al. established an acoustic
and satisfaction with the acoustic conditions in an environ-
comfort model for a forklift by MLR between the dependent
ment, has attracted more and more attention in the aerospace
variable, rank scores, and independent variables loudness
industry.1–3 Good acoustic comfort in large passenger aircraft
and articulation index.20 Li and Huang developed MLR
cabins diminishes fatigue during the journey and improves
models to predict noise discomfort in micro commercial
the safety and performance of all occupants.4 Acoustic dis-
vehicles with different driving and road conditions using
comfort and annoyance have been recognised as the adverse
various SQMs such as loudness, sharpness, and roughness.19
effect of noise on comfort in previous studies, e.g., comfort
Yoon et al.21 have built sound quality models, including
studies on aircraft interior sound and vibration.5
loudness, sharpness, and roughness metrics for the noise
Empirical studies have found that acoustic discomfort
pleasant of a vehicle’s heating, ventilation, and air condi-
(or annoyance) is dominated by sound pressure level (SPL)
tioning (HAVC) system via regression.
and moderated by the sound sources depending on their dif-
Zwicker and Fastl12 proposed a psychoacoustic annoy-
ferent characteristics.6–11 Sound quality metrics (SQMs),
ance (PA) model to estimate acoustic discomfort and veri-
e.g., loudness, sharpness, fluctuation strength, roughness,
fied that it achieved excellent performance for synthetic
and tonality, have been proposed to represent subjective
noise and mechanical noise radiated from cars, air condi-
responses to various sound features and work as psycho-
tioners, and tools.10 Some studies have modified the
acoustic indices for estimating and predicting noise-induced
Zwicker PA model to improve the estimation accuracy of
discomfort.12 Studies have been spread across areas of traf-
discomfort caused by different types of noise. More investi-
fic noise,10 construction noise,13 domestic appliance
gated the influence of signal characteristics on aircraft noise
noise,14–17 vehicle noise,18,19 etc. These studies have found
discomfort (via annoyance judgements) and modified the
that noise-induced discomfort is highly dependent on acous-
Zwicker PA model by adding tonality and a series of c coef-
tic characteristics. For example, loudness and roughness
ficients for each independent psychoacoustic variable.22 Di
impacted the acoustic discomfort significantly for construc-
et al.23 studied acoustic discomfort induced by a 1000 kV
tion noise,13 whereas air conditioner and refrigerator noise
transformer low-frequency tonal noise and developed the
discomfort were strongly correlated with pitch.14
tonality factor xT in the modified PA model. A recent study
on modelling acoustic discomfort for the rotor system noise
a) of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) added a parameter of
Also at: State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China. impulsiveness based on the More PA model.24 From the pre-
b)
Email: yu_huang@sjtu.edu.cn viously mentioned studies, it seems that various sound

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154 (4), October 2023 C 2023 Acoustical Society of America
V 1963

quality models with different psychophysical metrics are
necessary for appropriately estimating different types of
noise based on subjective experimental data, either using the
MLR or the Zwicker and other modified PA approaches.
Several studies investigated the SQMs influencing
noise-induced discomfort inside aircraft cabins. Quehl found
that increasing loudness, roughness, and fluctuation strength
would reduce comfort in the propeller and jet aircraft cabin.4
Lopes found that sharpness, loudness, and tonality illus-
trated higher correlations with evaluated annoyance than
other SQMs in the propeller aircraft cabin.25 Pennig et al.26
indicated that the comfort sensation in aircraft was domi-
nated by SPL and significantly affected by the frequency
characteristics changing with the seat positions, i.e., front,
middle, and rear in the aircraft cabin, through variation
dimension regression analysis. However, there has not been
a comprehensive study on acoustic discomfort for large pas-
senger aeroplanes. A complete understanding of how differ-
ent SQMs influence discomfort inside the aircraft cabin
during a flight allows acoustic discomfort models based on
sound quality modelling, with the potential benefits of more
efficient comfort designs for large passenger aircraft cabins.
This study intends to investigate the discomfort caused
by noise in two large passenger aeroplanes during their
cruise at different positions of the cabins. The response
FIG. 1. (Color online) The experimental setup. (a) The calibration system connection diagram and the experimental device connection diagram. (b) The
scene of calibrating the noise samples. (c) The scene of subjective testing.
1964 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154 (4), October 2023
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020838
values of noise discomfort at various recording points were
rated in the laboratory experiment and compared, hypothe-
sising that: (1) discomfort would differ significantly among
the front, middle and rear cabin of aircraft, and (2) among
different locations at the aisle, window and air conditioning
outlet. We developed and compared the sound quality mod-
els using MLR and PA models in estimating the response
values of discomfort and propose a modified approach to
improve the accuracy of PA models for the aircraft cabin
noise.
II. METHODS
A. Apparatus
The experiment was conducted in a semi-anechoic
chamber. The noise stimuli were played via a pair of head-
phones (Sennheiser HD600, Wedemark, Germany) driven
by a digital-to-analogue converter (RME ADI-2DAC,
Haimhausen, Germany) connected to a laptop (Xiaomi
Notebook Pro 15, Shanghai, China). MATLAB (version
R2020a, Mathworks, Natick, MA) generated and controlled
the stimuli. An artificial head (HMS IV, Head Acoustics,
Herzogenrath, Germany) was used to calibrate the stimuli.
The connection diagram of the experiment set-up and the
scene are shown in Fig. 1.
Huang et al.
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020838
B. Stimuli
The noise was recorded during the flights of two
narrow-body large passenger aeroplanes with two jet
engines, i.e., Boeing 737–800 (plane A) and Airbus A320
(plane B). Plane A is 39.47 m long, 12.55 m high, 34.32 m
wingspan, 3.53 m cabin width, and has a passenger capacity
from 160 to 189. Plane B is 37.6 m long, 11.76 m high,
35.8 m wingspan, 3.70 m cabin width, and has a passenger
capacity from 150 to 186. The flight was explicitly organ-
ised for the acoustic measurement, with only the flight crew
and several technical testing personnel (less than seven) on
board. The cabins of the two aeroplanes were divided into
three parts (i.e., front, middle, and rear sections). The posi-
tions of the measuring points are shown in Fig. 2. We set up
21 measuring points in plane A: No.1–No.14 at the seat
headrest with a height of 1.2 m from the floor, and
No.15–No.21 at the aisle with a height of 1.7 m; 21 measur-
ing points in plane B: No.1–No.11 at the seat headrest,
No.12–No.17 at the aisle, and No.18–No.21 at 10 cm far
from the air conditioning outlet. The noise at all measuring
points was simultaneously measured and recorded using
microphones (type 4189, Br€uel & Kjaer, Naerum,
Denmark). During the test, the aeroplanes were cruising sta-
bly, the seat back was upright, and the pressure and air con-
ditioning systems were in regular operation.
Forty-two noise samples were recorded, with 21 pieces
for each aircraft cabin. We selected a 5-s stimulus from
each noise sample with no voice (e.g., speaking, broadcast-
ing) and no sudden abnormal sound (e.g., door opening
sound) by time and frequency spectrum analysis and exper-
imenter audition. To ensure all stimuli had the same A-
weighted SPLs as the recording samples, we calibrated all
stimuli via headphones (HD 600) on the artificial head
(HMS IV). The time domain and frequency spectra of six
typical stimuli, i.e., one for each representative position,
are shown in Fig. 3.
C. Study participants
We recruited twenty-four healthy participants, 12 males
and 12 females, aged from 20 to 30 (median age: 23), at
Shanghai Jiao Tong University. They self-reported normal
hearing and could perceive audiometric frequencies between
FIG. 2. (Color online) Locations of the measuring points in the front, middle, and rear cabin of two aeroplanes. The index in green for sitting position near
the window, in purple for standing position in the aisle, and in blue for air conditioning outlet. The frame line bronze solid line front section, olive solid line
middle section, maroon solid line rear section.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154 (4), October 2023
125 and 8000 Hz at 20 dB SPL in a hearing test before the
formal experiment. None reported a history of otological or
neurological disorders. All study participants signed
informed consent before the experiment.
D. Procedure
The subjective experiment was in a semi-anechoic cham-
ber. Each participant heard stimuli as diotic signals and eval-
uated the acoustic discomfort using the absolute magnitude
estimation (AME) method, i.e., using any positive numerical
value without an upper limit to rate the discomfort magni-
tude. Stevens developed the magnitude estimation method to
scale the subjective intensity of stimulus.27 We adopted the
AME method, which has been employed to obtain the dis-
comfort magnitudes of noise and vibration before, to get con-
tinuous “response magnitude” as a “quantitative continuum”
other than “response extent” as a “qualitative continuum”
that might be more suitable with the CR method.28,29 The
AME method would also benefit from its unconstrained use
of numbers and is relatively free of biases without any limita-
tions or cognitive constraints.27–29
Before starting the experiment, study participants were
provided with written instructions and practised with the
AME method until they felt confident about the formal
experiment. The task was presented in the instructions as
“Please give the numerical values of discomfort (i.e., your
uncomfortable sense) caused by the noise stimulus” (both in
English and Chinese). Each stimulus lasted 5-s, and the
whole test duration for each participant was around 15 min.
For each participant, the stimuli were played in independent
random orders. The stimuli could be replayed if required by
the participants. The participants had nothing to do but to
listen and report, and there was no other disturbance during
the experiment. The protocol was approved by the Human
Experimentation Safety and Ethics Committee of the Bio-X
Research Institute at Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
E. Data processing
The SQMs, i.e., Zwicker loudness, sharpness, rough-
ness, fluctuation strength, and tonality, of all noise stimuli,
were calculated by the software Artemis (version 12, Head
Acoustics, Germany). The loudness (in sone) and the 5th
Huang et al. 1965

FIG. 3. (Color online) The time domain and frequency spectra of typical noise stimuli at front, middle, and rear sections in two planes.
percentile of the loudness (N5 , in sone) calculation were
both based on the ISO532 method.30 The sharpness (in
acum) was calculated according to DIN 45692.31 The tonal-
ity (in tuHMS) was calculated according to ECMA-418–2.32
The roughness (in asper) and fluctuation strength (in vacil)
were calculated according to the hearing model of Sottek,33
which was also adopted in recent sound quality modelling
studies.22,24,45
1966 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154 (4), October 2023
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020838
The numerical response values of each participant
should be “standardized” or “equalized” because all the sub-
jective magnitudes had to be compared in the same numeri-
cal range. The discomfort magnitudes were divided by the
median values of individual data over all stimuli and multi-
plied by 100.34 We show the “standardized” subjective
response values of discomfort caused by each of all 42 noise
stimuli by a boxplot in Fig. 4. Discomfort values grouped by
Huang et al.
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020838
FIG. 4. (Color online) Subjective discomfort response values of each stimulus. , sitting position near the window, 䉱, standing position in the aisle, , air
conditioning outlet position.
various locations (i.e., the sitting position, standing position
and air conditioning outlet, refer to different index colours
in Fig. 2) are shown to compare among different cabin sec-
tions (i.e., front, middle and rear, refer to different frame
line colours in Fig. 2) and grouped in various sections to
compare among different locations.
All statistical and regression analyses were completed
in the IBM SPSS Statistics (version 23, IBM, Armonk, NY).
After the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test35 on the data set (i.e.,
all individual response values) for each stimulus, most data
sets were normally distributed, and the rest approximated
the normal distribution. Therefore, nonparametric statistical
tests were employed. A Friedman test was used to compare
the differences in response values among multiple matched
groups of stimuli.36 The significance level (i.e., the p-value)
was adjusted for multiple comparisons by Bonferroni
correction.
All subjects’ median discomfort response values for
each stimulus were calculated, and all 42 median discomfort
response values of 42 stimuli followed the normal distribu-
tion (p > 0.05, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). We investigated
the relationship between discomfort response values and
multiple SQMs by MLR. The zero-order Pearson correlation
(i.e., the correlation between response values and all SQMs
without controlling for any variable) and partial correlation
(when controlling for loudness) were performed to investi-
gate the contribution of each psychoacoustic metric to
response values. We determined the proper regression equa-
tions considering the partial correlation coefficient and vari-
ance inflation factor (VIF) for the multi-collinearity
problem.
We also adopted three PA models for noise-induced
discomfort response.
Zwicker PA model,
 value of the ith noise stimulus, xmin is the minimum, and
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PA ¼ N5 1 þ xS 2 þ xFR 2 ; (1)
( III. RESULTS
ðS  1:75Þ  0:25lgðN5 þ 10Þ; S > 1:75;
xS ¼
0; S  1:75;
2:18
xFR ¼ ð0:4F þ 0:6RÞ;
N5 0:4
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154 (4), October 2023
•
where N5 is the 5th percentile of the loudness (in a unit of
sone), S is sharpness (in a unit of acum), R is roughness (in a
unit of asper), and F is fluctuation strength (in a unit of vacil),
xS 2 and xFR 2 are two coefficients defined in Eqs. (2) and (3).12
The More PA model,
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PAM ¼ N5 1 þ c0 þ c1 xS 2 þ c2 xFR 2 þ c3 xTM 2 ; (4)
h i
2 2
xTM 2 ¼ ð1  ec4 N5 Þ ð1  ec5 K5 Þ ; (5)
where xTM 2 describes the effect of tonality and is defined in
Eq. (5), K5 is the tonality exceeded 5% of the time (in a unit
of tu), and the coefficients, c0 ¼ 0.16, c1 ¼ 11.48,
c2 ¼ 0.84, c3 ¼ 1.25, c4 ¼ 0.29, c5 ¼ 5.49, all iterated by non-
linear least square method.22
The Di PA model,
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PAD ¼ N5 1 þ xS 2 þ xFR 2 þ xTD 2 ; (6)
6:41
xTD ¼ T; (7)
N5 0:52
where T is the tonality (in a unit of tu), xS 2 , xFR 2 , and xTD 2
are coefficients defined in Eqs. (2), (3), and (7).23
The reported discomfort values (inter-individual median
value per stimulus) and estimated discomfort values by dif-
ferent models were normalized to 0–1 intervals to ensure the
results are compared in the same numerical scale,24 by the
following equation:
xi  xmin
yi ¼ ; (8)
xmax  xmin
where yi is the normalized response value, xi is the response
xmax is the maximum value of the data set, fxi g.
(2) A. Response values of discomfort caused by noise
in two aircraft cabins
Figure 4 shows the boxplot [including “minimum,” first
(3)
quartile (Q1), median, third quartile (Q3), “maximum,” and
Huang et al. 1967

outlier] of individual subjective response values of discom-
fort caused by all noise stimuli in the two aeroplanes.
Twenty-eight data (i.e., the solid circle, triangle and cross-
symbols in Fig. 4) with values out of the range of the first
quartile (Q1) minus 1.5 times the interquartile ranges (IQR)
and the third quartile (Q3) plus 1.5 times the IQR (i.e.,
[Q1–1.5IQR, Q3 þ 1.5QR]) were eliminated in the further
analysis according to commonly used outlier removal
criteria.37
We divided the data into five groups: Group AI, the sit-
ting position near the window of plane A (i.e., the green
index group in Fig. 2); AII, the standing position in the aisle
(i.e., the purple index group in Fig. 2); BI, the sitting posi-
tion near the window of plane B (i.e., the green index group
in Fig. 2); BII, the standing position in the aisle (i.e., the pur-
ple index group in Fig. 2); BIII, the air conditioning outlet
position (i.e., the blue index group in Fig. 2). Figure 5 shows
the boxplot (including “minimum,” Q1, median, Q3, and
“maximum”) of individual discomfort response values of
the five groups stimuli (i.e., Groups AI, AII, BI, BII, and BIII)
compared among different sections (i.e., front, middle, and
rear) of two aeroplanes. There were significant differences
in discomfort values among the front, middle, and rear sec-
tions for each group (p < 0.01, Friedman test). In either
1968 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154 (4), October 2023
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020838
FIG. 5. (Color online) The acoustic dis-
comfort of stimuli in five position groups
compared among different sections of
two aeroplanes. green solid line, Groups
AI and BI, sitting position near the win-
dow of planes A and B; violet solid line
Groups AII and BII, standing position in
the aisle of of planes A and B; blue solid
line Group BIII, air conditioning outlet
of plane B. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001,
****p < 0.0001, Friedman test, signifi-
cance after Bonferroni correction.
plane A or B, the response values of discomfort in the mid-
dle section were the greatest for the usual activity positions
of passengers (i.e., Groups AI, AII, BI, and BII), with median
values at least 10% points higher than the front or rear sec-
tion. The noise at the air conditioning outlet positions (i.e.,
Group BIII) in the front section of plane B caused signifi-
cantly greater discomfort responses than the middle (median
values, 15.2% points higher) and rear (median values,
78.4% points higher) sections.
Figure 6 shows the boxplot (including “minimum,” Q1,
median, Q3, and “maximum”) of individual discomfort
response values of stimuli compared among different loca-
tions at the aisle, window, and air conditioning outlet in
each section (i.e., the front, middle, and rear) of two aero-
planes. From Fig. 6, the discomfort values at the window
position (Groups AI and BI) were significantly greater than
those at the aisle position (Groups AII and BII), with median
values 28.2% points higher for plane A and 11.1% points
higher for plane B. The noise at the air conditioning outlets
(Group BIII) caused the greatest discomfort in each section
of plane B, with median values 44.4% points higher at the
window position (i.e., Group BI) for the front section, 4.9%
points higher for the middle, and 5.5% points higher for the
rear. Note that the difference in the discomfort among the
FIG. 6. (Color online) The acoustic dis-
comfort of stimuli compared among dif-
ferent locations at the aisle, window and
air conditioning outlet. Bronze solid line
front section, olive solid line middle sec-
tion, maroon solid line rear section.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001,
****p < 0.0001, Friedman test and
Wilcoxon test, significance after
Bonferroni correction.
Huang et al.
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020838

different locations in the middle section of plane B was
insignificant (p ¼ 0.08, Friedman test, significance after
Bonferroni correction), possibly attributed to the relatively
poor acoustic comfort situation at all locations in the middle
section.
B. The SQMs of aircraft cabin noise
The A-weighted SPLs, sound quality metrics (i.e., loud-
ness, sharpness, roughness, fluctuation strength, and tonality),
and median response values of discomfort caused by noise in
planes A and B are listed in Tables I and II, respectively. The
median and IQR values of the previously noted parameters of
21 stimuli for each plane are also marked. The noise stimuli
of plane B have lower average and smaller IQR values of
SPL, loudness, and discomfort response than Plane A. Figure
7 shows the heatmap of the median discomfort response val-
ues and A-weighted SPLs at each measuring point of both
aeroplanes. From Fig. 7, the air conditioning outlet points
(marked with the symbol ) appear to have significantly
higher SPL and discomfort than other positions in plane B.
As the air conditioning outlet points are too close to the noise
source and not the usual hearing positions of routinely active
people, the data of these positions (i.e., indices B18–B21 in
Table II) would not be employed for the following sound
quality modelling process.
C. Sound quality models of aircraft cabin noise
As indicated previously, we used the data at usual
human sitting and standing positions (i.e., A01–21 and
B01-17) of the aircraft cabin noise for establishing the
model. Table III shows the correlation matrix between every
two variables (i.e., discomfort response value, A-weighted
SPL, loudness, sharpness, roughness, fluctuation strength
and tonality) for planes A and B. The discomfort response
values and the loudness showed the dominant effect on dis-
comfort (i.e., the highest significant positive correlation
coefficient) for each plane. Table IV lists the zero-order
(i.e., the correlation between variables without controlling
for any variable) and partial correlation coefficients with
controlling for the loudness between the psychoacoustic
metrics and the response values for planes A, B, and both
planes. When not controlling loudness: (1) the fluctuation
strength values had a substantial positive correlation with
discomfort response values for planes A, B, and total data;
(2) the tonality values had a positive correlation with dis-
comfort response values for plane A and total data; (3) the
sharpness and roughness values have a positive correlation
with discomfort response values for plane B and a negative
correlation with response values for plane A and total data,
respectively. However, when controlling loudness: (1) the
correlation coefficients for sharpness, fluctuation strength,
and tonality decrease as expected; (2) whereas the signifi-
cant negative effect of roughness on discomfort response
values emerged with increased absolute values of the nega-
tive correlation coefficients between roughness and discom-
fort for each and both planes.
The sound quality models of noise discomfort response
were established using the stepwise multiple linear regres-
sion method between the dependent variable, discomfort

TABLE I. The A-weighted SPLs, SQMs, and median response values of stimuli for plane A.

Median response A-weighted Loudness Sharpness Roughness Fluctuation Tonality

Index values SPL (dBA) (sone) (acum) (asper) strength (vcail) (tu)

A01 105.00 74.2 36.97 1.93 2.95 0.0629 2.0787

A02 137.86 77.2 44.06 1.48 2.96 0.0746 3.3864
A03 98.46 76.6 38.63 1.58 3.18 0.0658 1.2763
A04 100.00 77.9 41.80 1.89 3.34 0.07 0.1049
A05 124.05 78.5 45.07 1.74 3.21 0.0714 1.5601
A06 123.33 80.4 47.73 1.42 3.03 0.0778 2.5537
A07 113.33 78.9 43.69 1.33 2.86 0.0805 2.791
A08 108.75 72.5 34.28 1.27 2.52 0.0626 3.2842
A09 96.32 77.0 39.83 1.62 3.18 0.0684 0.7831
A10 100.00 78.3 41.86 1.86 3.23 0.0735 0.2488
A11 125.00 80.7 50.82 1.55 3.17 0.0781 3.1543
A12 128.57 80.2 50.97 1.54 2.85 0.0857 4.3302
A13 124.05 78.7 44.60 1.35 2.81 0.0794 3.2924
A14 100.00 78.1 41.74 1.54 3.12 0.068 0.5359
A15 57.14 73.2 29.89 1.79 2.95 0.0574 0.3258
A16 65.48 74.5 32.40 1.67 3.14 0.0552 0.1669
A17 88.33 75.7 38.17 1.79 3.16 0.0577 1.0076
A18 118.25 77.2 41.72 2.04 3.30 0.0641 0.7836
A19 99.29 78.0 39.81 1.56 3.12 0.0699 0.1056
A20 100.00 76.8 35.35 1.45 2.91 0.07 0.079
A21 98.58 77.1 37.38 1.66 3.04 0.0712 0.0723
Median 100.00 77.2 41.72 1.58 3.12 0.0700 1.0076
IQR 24.75 1.96 6.68 0.31 0.23 0.0105 2.5422

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154 (4), October 2023 Huang et al. 1969
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020838

TABLE II. The A-weighted SPLs, SQMs and median response values of stimuli for plane B.

Median response A-weighted Loudness Sharpness Roughness Fluctuation Tonality

Index values SPL (dBA) (sone) (acum) (asper) strength (vcail) (tu)

B01 60.00 74.5 33.13 1.88 3.10 0.0529 0.2768

B02 90.00 75.3 35.69 2.27 3.21 0.0655 0.1046
B03 114.28 77.3 39.15 2.04 3.11 0.0736 0.2278
B04 100.00 75.5 35.53 1.98 3.06 0.0628 0.0694
B05 100.00 77.3 39.86 2.24 3.43 0.067 0.0511
B06 88.08 76.4 37.61 2.25 3.26 0.0544 0.3206
B07 100.00 74.2 34.19 2.27 3.15 0.055 0.312
B08 100.99 77.3 38.43 2.08 3.24 0.0755 0.072
B09 100.32 77.0 38.08 2.01 3.14 0.0735 0.0655
B10 100.32 76.3 39.50 2.24 3.32 0.0577 0.2099
B11 90.87 77.7 38.48 2.41 3.52 0.0575 0.0614
B12 60.77 75.9 34.51 1.92 3.19 0.0616 0.2736
B13 86.19 75.5 35.87 2.19 3.21 0.0677 0.1841
B14 100.00 77.2 39.06 2.11 3.32 0.0683 0.0793
B15 100.00 76.8 37.65 2.05 3.21 0.0743 0.078
B16 88.33 76.8 38.53 1.95 3.32 0.069 0.0588
B17 82.31 74.8 35.60 2.32 3.24 0.0531 0.1404
B18 126.67 78.5 43.02 2.60 3.62 0.0582 0.4514
B19 120.00 77.2 42.76 2.71 3.66 0.0627 0.1149
B20 71.43 75.8 35.80 1.84 3.20 0.0617 0.2811
B21 100.00 77.7 41.57 2.04 3.38 0.0672 0.1512
Median 100.00 76.8 38.08 2.11 3.24 0.0628 0.1404
IQR 12.24 1.73 3.46 0.22 0.13 0.0106 0.2016

response values, and the independent variables, psycho-
acoustic metrics, for all noise stimuli in both aeroplanes.
The variables of the MA model are determined by consider-
ing the partial correlation coefficient, F-test and t-test
results, and VIF.
The MA model for total data is shown as follows:
MA ¼ 68:010 þ 3:658L þ 19:842S  47:426R;
where MA is the discomfort value, L is the loudness, S is the
sharpness, and R is the roughness for both planes.
The results of the t-test, the VIF, the F-test and multiple
coefficient of determination (i.e., R2, calculated by the linear
least square method for the difference between the measured
and predicted dependent values) for the variables and equa-
tion are shown in Table V. The high determination coeffi-
(9) cient (R2), and the significant F-test results illustrate that the

FIG. 7. (Color online) The heatmaps of the median response values (above) and A-weighted sound pressure levels (below) for each measuring point in the
aircraft cabin. The air conditioning outlet points are marked with the symbol .

1970 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154 (4), October 2023 Huang et al.
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020838

TABLE III. Correlation matrix between discomfort response value, A-weighted sound pressure level [SPL(A)], and psychoacoustic metrics, i.e., loudness
(L), sharpness (S), roughness (R), fluctuation strength (FS), and tonality for planes A and B. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Plane A Discomfort SPL(A) L S R FS Tonality

Discomfort 1 — — — — — —
SPL(A) 0.642** 1 — — — — —
L 0.827** 0.907** 1 — — — —
S 0.322 0.194 0.198 1 — — —
R 0.162 0.296 0.138 0.694** 1 — —
FS 0.766** 0.849** 0.848** 0.454* 0.171 1 —
Tonality 0.713** 0.294 0.599** 0.532** 0.589** 0.583** 1

Plane B Discomfort SPL(A) L S R FS Tonality

Discomfort 1 — — — — —
SPL(A) 0.489** 1
L 0.678** 0.885** 1 — — — —
S 0.267 0.003 0.217 1 — — —
R 0.085 0.547* 0.591* 0.588* 1 — —
FS 0.528* 0.621** 0.512* 0.364 0.077 1 —
Tonality 0.387 0.540* 0.503* 0.029 0.381 0.571* 1

MLR model well estimated the acoustic discomfort in the models. The mean squared error (MSE) and correlation
aircraft cabin, and all independent variables significantly coefficient (r) of each model are also marked in Fig. 8. The
influence the response values (p < 0.05, t-test). The small linear MA model performs better with higher correlation
VIF values indicate no multicollinearity of the equation coefficients and lower MSE than the nonlinear PA models.
obtained from MLR approaches. Noting that the indepen- Inspired by More approaches,22 we modified these PA
dent variable sharpness had a significant (p ¼ 0.03, t-test, as models by introducing the coefficients for independent vari-
shown in Table V) effect on discomfort and would increase ables. The modified PA models with various c0 are as
the determination coefficient of the model during the step- following:
wise multiple regression approach, thus we adopted sharp- The modified Zwicker PA model,
ness as an independent variable despite its relatively low  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
partial correlation coefficient with discomfort (0.116 when PAmod ¼ N5 1 þ c0 0 þ c1 0 xS 2 þ c2 0 xFR 2 ; (10)
controlling for loudness, as shown in Table IV).
We also estimated response values using the Zwicker the modified More PA model,
PA model, More PA model, and Di PA model in the forms  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
of Eqs. (1), (4), and (6), respectively. Figure 8 demonstrates PAMmod ¼ N5 1 þ c0 0 þ c1 0 xS 2 þ c2 0 xFR 2 þ c3 0 xTM 2 ;
the normalised measured and estimated response values
(11)
obtained from the experiment and different sound quality
h i
ð c4 0 N5 Þ2 ð c5 0 K5 Þ2
TABLE IV. Zero-order (controlling for none variable) and partial correla- xTM 2 ¼ 1e 1e ; (12)
tion coefficients (controlling for loudness) between discomfort response
values and psychoacoustic metrics, i.e., sharpness, roughness, FS, tonality and the modified Di PA model,
for planes A and B. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Plane A Loudness Sharpness Roughness FS Tonality PADmod ¼ N5 1 þ c0 0 þ c1 0 xS 2 þ c2 0 xFR 2 þ c3 0 xTD 2 ;
Zero-order 0.827** 0.322 0.162 0.766** 0.713** (13)
Controlling — 0.286 0.498* 0.216 0.484*
for loudness
TABLE V. The values of the variables, t-test, VIF, F-test, and determina-
Plane B Loudness Sharpness Roughness FS Tonality
tion coefficient (R2) of the sound quality models for acoustic discomfort in
Zero-order 0.678** 0.267 0.085 0.528** 0.387 the aircraft cabin.
Controlling — 0.167 0.546* 0.287 0.072
Model Variable t-test p-value VIF F-test p-value R2
for loudness
Total Intercept 2.137 0.040
Total Loudness Sharpness Roughness FS Tonality
Loudness 8.962 0.000 1.411
Zero-order 0.808** 0.375 0.263 0.713** 0.656** Sharpness 2.205 0.034 3.143
Controlling — 0.116 0.398* 0.275 0.298 Roughness 3.398 0.002 2.673
for loudness Eq. (9) MA ¼ 68:010 þ 3:658L þ 19:842S  47:426R 33.098 0.000 0.745

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154 (4), October 2023 Huang et al. 1971

FIG. 8. (Color online) Measured response values (i.e., inter-individual median value per stimuli) versus estimated values of discomfort: (a) MA model, (b)
Zwicker PA model (Ref. 10), (c) More PA model (Ref. 22), and (d) Di PA model (Ref. 23). Note that the data are normalized to a 0–1 interval.
where xS , xFR , and xTM , and the ci 0 (i ¼ 1–5) are the coeffi-
cient factors. The c0 coefficients in Eqs. (10)–(13) was deter-
mined using a nonlinear regression analysis with the
measured response values as the dependent variable and the
different SQMs [i.e., the x factors in Eqs. (10)–(13)] as
independent variables. The calculated values of the ci 0 are
shown in Table VI. The normalised measured and estimated
response values, as well as the MSE and correlation coeffi-
cient (r), are shown in Fig. 9.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. The discomfort and psychoacoustic metrics
All the study participants proactively reported annoyed
or uncomfortable feelings caused by the stimuli after the
experiment, so we were convinced that they rated the dis-
comfort but not loudness. Tables III and IV show that dis-
comfort response values strongly correlate to loudness in
aircraft cabins. Previous studies have shown that annoyance
(discomfort) is significantly related to noise levels (e.g.,
SPL and loudness) from laboratory experiments, in situ sur-
veys, and meta-analyses.17,26,38–41 Simple linear regressions
were used further to investigate the influence of each SQM
on discomfort. Figure 10 shows that both for Plane A and
Plane B, the R2 of simple linear regression analysis between
response values and loudness is the greatest among that
between response values and each independent variable
(i.e., SPL, loudness, sharpness, roughness, fluctuation
strength, and tonality). It is consistent with studies on air-
craft interior noise,42 and rotor noise,24 indicating loudness
dominates the discomfort response values.
From Eq. (9) and Table IV (when controlling loudness),
the discomfort response is negatively correlated to rough-
ness in the 2.52–3.66 asper range. This finding is out of
TABLE VI. The c coefficients calculated by nonlinear least square method.
Model c0 0 c1 0 c2 0 c3 0 c4 0 c5 0
Modified Zwicker PA 6.671 18.427 4.927 — — — (R) is proportional to the frequency of modulation (fmod ) and
Modified More PA 8.805 17.433 5.697 1.580 10.000 8.045
Modified Di PA 10.010 24.333 8.351 0.124 — —
1972 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154 (4), October 2023
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020838
expectation because people tend to prefer a steady noise to a
fast fluctuating one, e.g., a study on road traffic noise annoy-
ance that manipulated the stimuli to the same SPL artifi-
cially found a positive correlation between roughness (R5
value in the range 1.4–2.2 asper) and annoyance,43 similar
to another study on road traffic noise induced discomfort
and roughness (R50 value in the range 1.4–2.6 asper).46
However, some previous studies also observed a similar
phenomenon as our present study, e.g., negative correlation
between roughness and noise discomfort on micro commer-
cial vehicles on the bump road,19 the acoustic pleasant posi-
tively correlated to roughness in the range 0.26–6.95 asper
of vehicle HVAC systems,21 and noise annoyance nega-
tively correlated to roughness in the multiple regression
sound quality model (a positive correlation found without
controlling loudness) for subway cars.47 A systematic study
on aircraft noise characteristics conducted by More22
adjusted the roughness (in the range of 1.48–3.77 asper),
while keeping loudness the same by applying frequency and
amplitude modulations to time history and intensifying the
fast fluctuations (50–90 per second) for the signal, and found
that the subjects fall into three groups according to subject-
to-roughness correlation coefficients, i.e., 21 out of 37 par-
ticipants were more annoyed with rougher sounds (i.e., posi-
tive correlation between annoyance and roughness), nine
participants were the opposite (i.e., negative correlation
between annoyance and roughness), and seven participants
appeared to be not sensitive to changes in roughness. There
seems to be an underlying psychophysical mechanism other
than mathematical phenomena such as multicollinearity.
A recent study with a series of 1-s click trains found
that the relationship between the roughness and subjective
aversion is nonmonotonic in the frequency range from
10 to 140 Hz, indicating that the aversion decreases with
increasing amplitude modulations faster than 40 Hz (in the
roughness range from 30 to 140 Hz).44 It merits thinking
whether the discomfort, which is also a quantification merit
of negative emotion, would have a similar relationship with
the amplitude modulation frequency. The roughness value
temporal masking depth (DL)10,
R  fmod DL: (14)
Huang et al.
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020838

FIG. 9. (Color online) Measured response values (i.e., inter-individual median value per stimuli) versus estimated values of discomfort: (a) MA model, (b)
modified Zwicker PA model, (c) modified More PA model, and (d) modified Di PA model. Note that the data are normalized to a 0–1 interval.

The frequency component (the carrier frequency or the mod-
ulation frequency) of the aircraft noise that contributes
greatly to the roughness does not necessarily produce great
discomfort, e.g., the components around 1080–2320 Hz (the
10–14th bark) for stimuli A02 and B03, which are not the
primary energy components for the aircraft cabin noise.
Different modulation frequencies may lead to other rough or
aversion behaviours and activate responses in different brain
regions, e.g., the study by Arnal et al.,44 resulting in a com-
plex neural mechanism. The same roughness values with
different carrier and modulation frequencies may not neces-
sarily lead to identical discomfort responses, which might
be a reason for the significant effect of the relatively small
range of roughness value (i.e., 2.52–3.66 asper) on discom-
fort responses in this study. Thus, investigating by strictly
controlling the noise characteristics (i.e., SPL and loudness)
is necessary to obtain further evidence on the effects of
roughness on perceived acoustic discomfort.
B. The sound quality models for aircraft cabin noise
discomfort
Comprehensively considering the significance of the t-test
for each variable, the F-test for the regression equation, the
VIF, and the determination coefficient R2 in the linear regres-
sion analysis, we selected loudness, sharpness, and roughness
as the independent variables of the MA model. This MA model
performed better in discomfort estimation (R2 ¼ 0.745, Table
V) than a simple linear regression model with an independent
variable of loudness (with R2 ¼ 0.657, Fig. 10), and would not
cause multicollinearity (VIF < 5, Table V). It might be argu-
able whether participants could perceive such a small variation
range of roughness or sharpness (see the IQRs in Tables I and
II) during the tests. Although it is inconclusive that the small
variations of roughness and sharpness affect the acoustic dis-
comfort in reality, at least the present MA model with three
independent variables is practical and might bring benefits in
distinguishing discomfort of noise having similar loudness.

FIG. 10. (Color online) The diagrams and R2 of simple linear regression analyses between values of discomfort and metrics of sound pressure level, loud-
ness, sharpness, roughness, fluctuation strength, and tonality. Bronze solid line front section, olive solid line middle section, maroon solid line rear section,
䊉, sitting position near the window, 䉬, standing position in the aisle, w, air conditioning outlet.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154 (4), October 2023 Huang et al. 1973
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020838

It might also be arguable that the perceived tonality TABLE VII. The values of the variables, t-test, VIF, F-test, and determina-
showed a large difference among stimuli at different posi- tion coefficient (R2) of the MA linear regression models using the first half
data.
tions (Tables I and II), so it seemed to correlate significantly
with discomfort in plane A (0.713** in Table III) on dis- Model Variable t-test p-value VIF F-test p-value R2
comfort. However, we think such an association between
Total Intercept 0.686 0.503
tonality and discomfort response is largely confounded by
Loudness 6.870 0.000 1.759
loudness. When controlling for loudness, the significant cor-
Sharpness 1.625 0.125 3.404
relation between tonality and discomfort of all stimuli disap- Roughness 2.202 0.044 2.888
peared (correlation coefficients reduced from 0.696** to Eq. (A1) MA ¼ 33:346 þ 4:764L þ 22:987S  51:401R 20.693 0.000 0.805
0.258, as shown in Table III). During the stepwise multiple
linear regression approach, adding the tonality as an inde-
pendent variable neither increased the determination coeffi- metrics if not considering the multicollinearity, e.g., R2 would
cient (R2) nor significantly influenced discomfort (p ¼ 0.45, be 0.741 when adding the tonality in the MLR procedure.
t-test). Therefore, we excluded tonality as a good indicator All the MA and modified PA models reasonably esti-
of aircraft cabin noise. mate the noise discomfort in the aircraft cabin. The MA
We illustrated the validity and robustness of the MA model is intuitive in showing the contribution of parameters
and modified PA models this study established from two and evaluating the noise discomfort for a specific object.
aspects. First, we used the data of the air conditioning outlet The PA model is also applicable and could be modified by
points (i.e., index B18–B21 in Table II), which were not adding new parameters and data to achieve better perfor-
adopted in the modelling. The correlation coefficients, r, mance in estimating noise discomfort without considering
between the estimated and measured values were 0.968, the multicollinearity problem. However, existing PA models
0.968, 0.930, and 0.965 for the MA model, modified can hardly illustrate the relationship between a specific
Zwicker PA model, modified More PA model, and modified SQM and discomfort, e.g., the negative correlation between
Di PA model, respectively. Second, we split the data in half: roughness and discomfort caused by the aircraft cabin noise.
A01–07, A15, A18, A20, B01–06, B13, B14, and B16 (i.e., The modified PA models with coefficients for independent
the first half) versus data of A08–14, A16, A17, A19, A21, variables [i.e., Eqs. (10)–(13) and Table VI] may overcome
B07–12, B15, and B17 (i.e., the second half), as indexed in this shortage.
Fig. 2, and found good Cronbach’s alpha (i.e., 0.82) between
the two halves of the data. We fit the MA and modified PA C. The noise discomfort in different positions
models using the first half data and validated the models of the aircraft cabin
using the second half data, as shown in the Appendix. The
In Secs. III A and III B, the noise caused the most dis-
correlation coefficients, r, between the estimated and mea-
comfort responses in the middle cabin section, and discom-
sured values of the validation sets were 0.871, 0.887, 0.908,
fort at the window position was greater than at the aisle
and 0.890 for the MA model, modified Zwicker PA model,
position for the usual activity positions of passengers, indi-
modified More PA model, and modified Di PA model,
cating a priority target for acoustic comfort design.
respectively.
Moreover, it seems no longer appropriate to adopt the A-
As listed in Table VI, the MA model better estimates
weighted SPL purely as the reference indicator, e.g., the
acoustic discomfort response with greater correlation coeffi-
noise in plane B (except for the air conditioning outlet posi-
cients and less MSE than the PA models. A possible reason
tions) had a slight variation of A-weighted SPL (min to
is that these PA models were not established for aircraft
mum, less than 3 dBA) but a big difference in discomfort, as
cabin noise, e.g., More PA model was established by inves-
shown in Table II and Fig. 7. Even the opposite was found,
tigating aircraft traffic noise, and Di PA model was estab-
e.g., A02 had a slightly lower A-weighted SPL [i.e., around
lished from transformer radiated noise. The modified
0.7 dB(A) less] but much higher discomfort value (i.e.,
models performed better in discomfort estimation with 20%
around 37.9% points higher) than A04 in plane A, and B11
points higher correlation coefficients and lower MSEs com-
had the greatest A-weighted SPL but relatively small dis-
pared to the original PA models after introducing the c0
comfort among all the noise stimuli in plane B, as shown in
coefficients. The subjective evaluation is essential in the
Tables II and III and Fig. 7. At least, if not the discomfort
sound quality modelling of noise discomfort since the c0 val-
values, the loudness is essential to guide the acoustic design.
ues were iterated by the nonlinear least square method using
the reported values from the experiment. From Fig. 9 and
TABLE VIII. The c coefficients in nonlinear regression models using the
Table VIII, the modified PA models perform slightly better first half data.
than the MA model in estimating the acoustic discomfort in
the aircraft cabin, and the More and Di models perform Model c0 0 c1 0 c2 0 c3 0 c4 0 c5 0
slightly better than the Zwicker PA model by introducing
Modified Zwicker PA 8.312 20.098 6.493 — — —
tonality. Higher R2 and lower MSE are expected to benefit Modified More PA 10.163 19.972 7.664 0.934 10.000 16.082
from adopting more SQMs as independent variables. We Modified Di PA 8.718 20.548 6.901 0.019 — —
could increase the R2 of the MA model by adopting more
1974 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154 (4), October 2023 Huang et al.
 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020838
FIG. 11. (Color online) Measured response values (i.e., inter-individual median value per stimuli) versus estimated values of the second half data. The dis-
comfort models were established using the first half data: (a) MA model, (b) modified Zwicker PA model, (c) modified More PA model, (d) modified Di PA
model. Note that the data are normalized to a 0–1 interval.
The greatest discomfort response values at the air con-
ditioning outlet positions, as shown in Sec. III A, indicated
the major contribution of the environmental control system
to acoustic discomfort in the aircraft cabin,25 which merited
the primary concern. In this study, the discomfort caused by
noise in the front section is significantly smaller than in the
middle and rear sections. However, a previous study found
that noise in the rear section was less unpleasant (more
acceptable) than in the front or middle section.26 It seems
that the acoustic discomfort response varied much, with its
characteristics depending on the aircraft. It merits more spe-
cific investigation on different aircraft types in further study.
V. CONCLUSION
The sound quality models for noise-induced discomfort in
the cabins of two large passenger aeroplanes were established
and compared using MLR and various PA approaches, respec-
tively. The MA model better estimated the subjective response
than the Zwicker, More, and Di PA models. After introducing
appropriate coefficients for independent variables, the perfor-
mance of all PA models improved. The acoustic discomfort in
the aircraft cabin was dominated by loudness and was influ-
enced by sharpness positively and by roughness negatively.
Reducing loudness and sharpness (i.e., the proportion of high-
frequency sound energy components) may improve acoustic
comfort better than merely controlling the A-weighted SPL,
whereas increasing or reducing roughness may be cautiously
approached for the aircraft cabin noise. The negative correla-
tion between discomfort and roughness merits careful investi-
gation in further study.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the National Natural
Science Foundation of China Grant No. 52072242 and A
Ministry Key Project (GW0890006).
APPENDIX
The MA linear regression model and modified PA nonlin-
ear regression models, as shown in Tables VII and VIII, were
established using data of A01–07, A15, A18, A20, B01–06,
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154 (4), October 2023
B13, B14, and B16 (i.e., the first half) and validated using data
of A08–14, A16, A17, A19, A21, B07–12, B15, and B17 (i.e.,
the second half), as indexed in Fig. 2. The normalised mea-
sured and estimated response values, as well as the MSE and
correlation coefficient (r), are shown in Fig. 11.
1
Airbus (2023). “Cabin comfort can make such a difference to the passen-
ger experience. This is why it is a major priority for Airbus,” https://
www.airbus.com/en/products-services/commercial-aircraft/cabin-and-co
mfort (Last viewed August 31, 2023.).
2
J. Bouwens, S. Hiemstra-van Mastrigt, and P. Vink, “Ranking of human
senses in relation to different in-flight activities contributing to the com-
fort experience of airplane passengers,” Int. J. Aviat. Aeronaut. Aerosp.
5(2), 9 (2018).
3
P. Vink, C. Bazley, I. Kamp, and M. Blok, “Possibilities to improve the
aircraft interior comfort experience,” Appl. Ergon. 43(2), 354–359
(2012).
4
V. Mellert, I. Baumann, N. Freese, and R. Weber, “Impact of sound and
vibration on health, travel comfort and performance of flight attendants
and pilots,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 12(1), 18–25 (2008).
5
J. Quehl, Comfort Studies on Aircraft Interior Sound and Vibration
(Universit€at Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany, 2001).
6
D. Berckmans, K. Janssens, A. H. Van, P. Sas, and W. Desmet, “Model-
based synthesis of aircraft noise to quantify human perception of sound
quality and annoyance,” J. Sound Vib. 311(3–5), 1175–1195 (2008).
7
K. White, A. W. Bronkhorst, and M. Meeter, “Annoyance by transporta-
tion noise: The effects of source identity and tonal components,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 141(5), 3137–3144 (2017).
8
A. J. Torija, S. Roberts, R. Woodward, I. H. Flindell, A. R. McKenzie,
and R. H. Self, “On the assessment of subjective response to tonal content
of contemporary aircraft noise,” Appl. Acoust. 146, 190–203 (2019).
9
Y. Huang, G. Di, Y. Zhu, Y. Hong, and B. J. Zhang, “Pair-wise compari-
son experiment on subjective annoyance rating of noise samples with dif-
ferent frequency spectrums but same A-weighted level,” Appl. Acoust.
69(12), 1205–1211 (2008).
10
Y. Soeta and H. Kagawa, “Three dimensional psychological evaluation of
aircraft noise and prediction by physical parameters,” Build. Environ.
167, 106445 (2020).
11
M. Brink, B. Sch€affer, D. Vienneau, M. Foraster, R. Pieren, I. C. Eze, C.
Cajochen, N. Probst-Hensch, M. R€ o€
osli, and J. M. Wunderli, “A survey
on exposure-response relationships for road, rail, and aircraft noise annoy-
ance: Differences between continuous and intermittent noise,” Environ.
Int. 125, 277–290 (2019).
12
E. Zwicker and H. Fastl, Psychoacoustics: Facts and Models (Springer
Science & Business Media, Heidelberg, Germany, 2013).
13
S. C. Lee, J. Y. Hong, and J. Y. Jeon, “Effects of acoustic characteristics
of combined construction noise on annoyance,” Build. Environ. 92,
657–667 (2015).
14
Y. Soeta and R. Shimokura, “Sound quality evaluation of air-conditioner
noise based on factors of the autocorrelation function,” Appl. Acoust.
124, 11–19 (2017).
Huang et al. 1975

15
S. Sato, J. You, and J. Jeon, “Sound quality characteristics of refrigerator
noise in real living environments with relation to psychoacoustical and
autocorrelation function parameters,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, 314–325
(2007).
16
H. Li, K. Chen, X. Wang, Y. Gao, and W. Yu, “A perceptual dissimilar-
ities based nonlinear sound quality model for range hood noise,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 144(4), 2300–2311 (2018).
17
Y. Huang and Q. Zheng, “Sound quality modelling of hairdryer noise,”
Appl. Acoust. 197, 108904 (2022).
18
Z. M. Nopiah, A. K. Junoh, and A. K. Ariffin, “Noise annoyance fuzzy
index in passenger car cabin,” Int. J. Veh. Noise Vib. 9(3–4), 216–233
(2013).
19
D. Li and Y. Huang, “The discomfort model of the micro commercial
vehicles interior noise based on the sound quality analyses,” Appl.
Acoust. 132, 223–231 (2018).
20
E. Zhang, Q. Zhang, J. Xiao, L. Hou, and T. Guo, “Acoustic comfort eval-
uation modeling and improvement test of a forklift based on rank score
comparison and multiple linear regression,” Appl. Acoust. 135, 29–36
(2018).
21
J. H. Yoon, I. H. Yang, J. E. Jeong, S. G. Park, and J. E. Oh, “Reliability
improvement of a sound quality index for a vehicle HVAC system using a
regression and neural network model,” Appl. Acoust. 73(11), 1099–1103
(2012).
22
S. R. More, Aircraft Noise Characteristics and Metrics (Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN, 2011).
23
G. Q. Di, X. W. Chen, K. Song, B. Zhou, and C. M. Pei, “Improvement of
Zwicker’s psychoacoustic annoyance model aiming at tonal noises,”
Appl. Acoust. 105, 164–170 (2016).
24
A. J. Torija, Z. Li, and P. Chaitanya, “Psychoacoustic modelling of rotor
noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 151(3), 1804–1815 (2022).
25
B. O. de Sa Lopes, Sound Quality Predictive Models: Annoyance in the
Interior of a Propeller Aircraft (University of Porto, Porto, Portugal,
2018).
26
S. Pennig, J. Quehl, and V. Rolny, “Effects of aircraft cabin noise on pas-
senger comfort,” Ergonomics 55(10), 1252–1265 (2012).
27
S. S. Stevens, Psychophysics: Introduction to its Perceptual, Neural, And
Social Prospects (Wiley, New York, 1986).
28
Y. Huang and M. J. Griffin, “Comparison of absolute magnitude estima-
tion and relative magnitude estimation for judging the subjective intensity
of noise and vibration,” Appl. Acoust. 77, 82–88 (2014).
29
Y. Huang and D. Li, “An empirical category-ratio scale for evaluating the
subjective intensity of noise based on the comparison of estimated magni-
tudes and categories,” Appl. Acoust. 158, 107048 (2020).
30
ISO 532-1-2017: Acoustics—Methods for calculating loudness—Part 1:
Zwicker method (ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2017).
31
DIN 45692: Measurement Technique for the Simulation of the Auditory
Sensation of Sharpness (Deutsches Institut F€ ur Normung, Berlin,
Germany, 2009).
1976 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 154 (4), October 2023
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020838
32
ECMA-418-2: Psychoacoustic Metrics for ITT Equipment — Part 2
(Models Based on Human Perception) (Ecma International, Geneva,
Switzerland, 2020).
33
R. Sottek, Modelle Zur Signalverarbeitung im Menschlichen Geh€ or
(Models for Signal Processing in Human Hearing) (RWTH Aachen,
Aachen, Germany, 1993).
34
Y. Huang and M. J. Griffin, “The relative discomfort of noise and vibra-
tion: Effects of stimulus duration,” Ergonomics 57(8), 1244–1255 (2014).
35
A. Sen and M. Srivastava, Regression Analysis: Theory, Methods, and
Applications (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, 1997).
36
S. S. Castellan, Nonparametric Statistics for the Social Sciences
(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988).
37
H. Hofmann, H. Wickham, and K. Kafadar, “Letter-value plots: Boxplots
for large data,” J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 26, 469–477 (2017).
38
E. Maris, P. J. Stallen, R. Vermunt, and H. Steensma, “Noise within the
social context: Annoyance reduction through fair procedures,” J. Acoust.
Soc. Am 121(4), 2000–2010 (2007).
39
J. K. Lee, J. Jang, S. I. Chang, and S. I. Lee, “Annoyance modeling using
personal and situational variables for construction site noise in urban
areas,” Appl. Acoust. 182, 108256 (2021).
40
Y. Wang, S. Zhang, D. Meng, and L. Zhang, “Nonlinear overall annoy-
ance level modeling and interior sound quality prediction for pure electric
vehicle with extreme gradient boosting algorithm,” Appl. Acoust 195,
108857 (2022).
41
R. Guski, D. Schreckenberg, and R. Schuemer, “WHO environmental
noise guidelines for the European Region: A systematic review on envi-
ronmental noise and annoyance,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
14(12), 1539 (2017).
42
J. R. Angerer, D. A. Mccurdy, and R. A. Erickson, “Development of an
annoyance model based upon elementary auditory sensations for steady-
state aircraft interior noise containing tonal components,” NASA TM-
104147 (NASA, Washington, DC, 1991).
43
J. Felcyn, “The influence of a signal’s time structure on the perceived
noise annoyance of road traffic noise,” J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 19,
881–892 (2021).
44
L. H. Arnal, A. Kleinschmidt, L. Spinelli, A.-L. Giraud, and P.
Megevand, “The rough sound of salience enhances aversion through neu-
ral synchronization,” Nat. Commun. 10, 3697 (2019).
45
A. J. Torija, P. Chaitanya, and Z. Li, “Psychoacoustic analysis of contra-
rotating propeller noise for unmanned aerial vehicles,” J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 149(2), 835–846 (2021).
46
R. B. Raggam, M. Cik, R. R. H€ oldrich, K. Fallast, E. Gallasch, M. Fend,
A. Lackner, and E. Marth, “Personal noise ranking of road traffic:
Subjective estimation versus physiological parameters under laboratory
conditions,” Int. J. Hygiene Environ. Health 210(2), 97–105 (2007).
47
L. K. Rimskaya-Korsakova, P. A. Pyatakov, and S. A. Shulyapov,
“Evaluations of the annoyance effects of noise,” Acoust. Phys. 68,
502–512 (2022).
Huang et al.