Systematic review reveals how exposure duration and timing influence sound perception in built environments, suggesting temporal factors shape human acoustic experience.
Non-acoustic factors in subjective evaluations of sound perception often exhibit temporal characteristics. Evidence on associations between such non-acoustic temporal factors and perception remains fragmented, and the role of these factors in human–sound environment interactions has yet to be systematically understood. Based on 107 studies, this systematic review develops a classification scheme and synthesizes evidence with bias assessment. The main findings are as follows: (1) A taxonomy classifies 4 perceptual dimensions (Perceived Acoustic Attributes, Noise Annoyance, Perceived Quality, and Soundscape Assessment) and 10 factors (categorized into personal and situational domains). The former domain reflects individual temporal characteristics and the latter comprises subdomains of exposure time and temporal positioning. (2) Evidence with acceptable bias indicates the following significant patterns. For exposure time, evidence of short-term exposure (typically minute-scale) consistently shows longer experimental stimulus duration is associated with higher annoyance, whereas evidence of medium- and long-term exposure (hour- and month-scale) shows a longer average time spent and time elapsed since an event link with lower annoyance in some instances. For temporal positioning, season could link with Noise Annoyance and Perceived Quality, day of the week with Perceived Quality, and time of the day with Perceived Acoustic Attributes, Noise Annoyance, and Perceived Quality. However, the predominance of non-significant results suggests practical relevance of temporal positioning warrants cautious interpretation. (3) Preliminary evidence suggests acoustic or visual environmental factors could moderate associations between exposure-time-related factors and Noise Annoyance. This review proposes a framework to integrate non-acoustic temporal factors into sound environment research and practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: