Brown A L, van Kamp Irene
Urban Research Program, Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, Queensland 4111, Australia.
J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Feb;125(2):905-14. doi: 10.1121/1.3058636.
Annoyance response to a change in noise exposure appears to demonstrate an excess response relative to those predicted from exposure-response curves obtained under steady-state conditions. This change effect also appears to persist well after the change. Numerous explanations have been postulated for this phenomenon. This paper catalogs the different explanations and reviews the evidence for each. The evidence is of limited and variable quality but, while inadequate to endorse any one explanation, is sufficient to reject some notions and to identify a residual set of plausible explanations. These include two explanations based on modifiers of exposure-response relationships that potentially change between before and after conditions, an explanation based on differential response criteria of respondents chronically exposed to different steady-state levels of noise, and an explanation based on retention of coping strategies. All have ramifications for the assessment of human response (annoyance) where noise exposure changes, and some have wider implications for the interpretation of generalized exposure-response curves obtained in the steady state.
对噪声暴露变化的烦恼反应相对于在稳态条件下获得的暴露-反应曲线所预测的反应而言,似乎表现出过度反应。这种变化效应在变化之后似乎也会持续很长时间。针对这一现象已提出了许多解释。本文梳理了不同的解释,并对每种解释的证据进行了综述。证据的质量有限且参差不齐,虽然不足以支持任何一种解释,但足以否定一些观点,并确定一组剩余的合理的解释。这些解释包括两种基于暴露-反应关系调节因素的解释,这些调节因素在前后条件之间可能会发生变化;一种基于长期暴露于不同稳态噪声水平的受访者的不同反应标准的解释;以及一种基于应对策略保留的解释。所有这些解释对于噪声暴露发生变化时人类反应(烦恼)的评估都有影响,并且其中一些对稳态下获得的广义暴露-反应曲线的解释具有更广泛的意义。