TY - JOUR
T1 - Annoyance due to amplitude modulated low-frequency wind farm noise
T2 - A laboratory study
AU - Zajamsek, Branko
AU - Hansen, Kristy
AU - Lechat, Bastien
AU - Liebich, Tessa
AU - Dunbar, Claire
AU - Micic, Gorica
AU - Catcheside, Peter
PY - 2022/12
Y1 - 2022/12
N2 - This study tested for differences in perceived annoyance and loudness between road traffic noise (RTN) and wind farm noise (WFN) with amplitude modulation (AM) and tonality. Twenty-two participants, who were primarily university students with no previous exposure to WFN and aged between 19 and 29 (mean, 22 years old; standard deviation, 2) years old with normal hearing, underwent a laboratory-based listening test. Each participant rated perceived annoyance and loudness of WFN and RTN samples played at sound pressure levels (SPLs) ranging from 33 to 48 dBA. Probability modeling revealed that participants were the largest source of variability in ratings of perceived annoyance and loudness while noise type and SPL were relatively minor sources. Overall, no differences were found between WFN and RTN perceived annoyance or loudness ratings. On the other hand, no substantial differences in annoyance were found between low-frequency tonal AM and mid-to-high-frequency AM or "swish"WFN.
AB - This study tested for differences in perceived annoyance and loudness between road traffic noise (RTN) and wind farm noise (WFN) with amplitude modulation (AM) and tonality. Twenty-two participants, who were primarily university students with no previous exposure to WFN and aged between 19 and 29 (mean, 22 years old; standard deviation, 2) years old with normal hearing, underwent a laboratory-based listening test. Each participant rated perceived annoyance and loudness of WFN and RTN samples played at sound pressure levels (SPLs) ranging from 33 to 48 dBA. Probability modeling revealed that participants were the largest source of variability in ratings of perceived annoyance and loudness while noise type and SPL were relatively minor sources. Overall, no differences were found between WFN and RTN perceived annoyance or loudness ratings. On the other hand, no substantial differences in annoyance were found between low-frequency tonal AM and mid-to-high-frequency AM or "swish"WFN.
KW - Annoyance
KW - noise pollution
KW - wind farm noise
KW - Amplitude modulation
KW - road traffic noise
KW - Low-frequency noise
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85144431088&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/ARC/DP120102185
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/ARC/DE180100022
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/ARC/FT120100510
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/NHMRC/1113571
U2 - 10.1121/10.0016499
DO - 10.1121/10.0016499
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85144431088
SN - 0001-4966
VL - 152
SP - 3410
EP - 3421
JO - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
JF - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
IS - 6
ER -