Skip to main content
Download PDF

The moderating effect of the psychosocial working conditions (effort/reward/overcommitment) on the association between noise annoyance and cognitive performance among adolescents

BMC Psychology volume 13, Article number: 188 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

The primary objective of the current study was to evaluate the correlation between noise-induced annoyance and the cognitive performance within the Lebanese adolescent population and the moderating effect of psychosocial work aspects-namely effort, reward, and overcommitment- in this association.

Methods

An anonymous online survey was conducted in Lebanon between April and May 2023, using a snowball sampling technique and distributed across various social media platforms, to gather data from Lebanese adolescents. The sample was composed of 1269 adolescents. Participants voluntarily completed a self-administered Arabic questionnaire that consisted of a sociodemographic section and implemented three scales: Noise Annoyance scale, Effort-Reward in school scale, as well as LEAF scale.

Results

The moderation analysis findings revealed that at low levels of effort, higher noise annoyance was significantly associated with worse memory function (Beta = 0.94; p =.002) and mathematics skills (Beta = 0.40; p =.002), whereas at low (Beta = 0.49; p <.001) and moderate (Beta = 0.29; p =.001) levels of effort, it was significantly associated with worse sustained sequential processing. At low and moderate levels of reward, higher noise annoyance was significantly associated with worse attention (Beta = 0.48; p <.001 and Beta = 0.20; p <.031 respectively), sustained sequential processing (Beta = 0.43; p <.001 and Beta = 0.22; p =.013 respectively) and working memory (Beta = 0.47; p <.001 and Beta = 0.28; p =.002 respectively). At low levels of reward, higher annoyance was significantly associated with worse memory function (Beta = 0.82; p =.007), processing speed (Beta = 0.38; p =.001) and mathematic skills (Beta = 0.28; p =.026). Finally, at low and moderate levels of overcommitment, higher noise annoyance was significantly associated with worse factual memory (Beta = 0.49; p <.001 and Beta = 0.25; p =.005 respectively), worse attention (Beta = 0.45; p <.001 and Beta = 0.26; p =.005 respectively) and worse processing speed (Beta = 0.43; p <.001 and Beta = 0.23; p =.012 respectively).

Conclusion

This study could encourage the integration of targeted interventions and strategic measures that address both noise annoyance and psychosocial working conditions, defined as the academic work students perform both at school and at home, to proactively prevent the emergence of cognitive impairment among the adolescent population.

Peer Review reports

Background

Environmental noise has garnered considerable recognition as an omnipresent unwanted sound, an archetypical environmental stressor that threatens individuals as well as public health [1, 2]. As a result, noise was included as a primary concern on the World’s Health Organization’s (WHO) register of environmental stressors [3]. Annoyance was found to be the most frequent subjective reaction within a population subjected to ambient noise [4, 5]. It is generally believed that noise-induced annoyance arises from its interference with daily activities, communication, cognitive processes, and sleep patterns, potentially coupled with negative responses including mild anger, fear, and stress-associated reactions [4, 5]. In accordance to Lazarus’ transtheoretical stress model [6], stress emerges as a result of a person’s incapacity to effectively address environmental challenges, which exceed the scope of his accessible resources. Undoubtedly, observational and experimental studies have demonstrated that noise can evoke extra-auditory effects [7], including stress reactions that activate the autonomic and endocrine system [8, 9]. Noise annoyance is widely perceived to be a stress reaction to ambient noise [5, 6, 10], an indicator of the distress and unease triggered by noise exposure, exerting a significant impact on mental health [11,12,13]. A comprehensive analysis, presented through a systematic review of the WHO’s recommendations on environmental noise, has effectively evaluated the impact of noise on mental well-being [9], supported by precise assessments elucidating the adverse effects of noise on irritation [14], cognitive abilities [15], and sleep patterns [16]. According to WHO, the loss of 1.6 million healthy life years (DALYs, disability-adjusted life-years), each year, in western European countries (comprising approximately 340 million inhabitants) is attributed to environmental noise exposure. The primary contributors to this significant burden are noise-induced sleep disturbance and annoyance [17, 18]. In fact, it is calculated that DALYs (disability adjusted life years) due to noise exposure in Western European nations comprise 45,000 years attributed to cognitive function impairment in children, 903,000 years due to sleep problems, and 587,000 solely attributable to annoyance [18, 19].

Particularly, WHO revealed that nearly 45,000 disability-adjusted life-years (DALY) are lost annually among children aged from 7 to 19 years within western European countries due to noise exposure [15, 18]. Research findings suggests that noise may exert a more significant effect during the execution of tasks involving increased cognitive demands, implying that adolescents undertaking more challenging academic work may be more particularly susceptible to noise disturbances compared to children [20, 21]. Furthermore, gender does not appear to exert any influence on noise-induced annoyance [20,21,22]. In fact, adolescents, within the age range of 13–15 [23] and 11–18 [20], are often posited to constitute a vulnerable age group [24] that naturally exhibit a heightened susceptibility to the adverse extra-auditory health implications of noise, which correlates with increased rates of annoyance. A comprehensive cumulative analysis of more than twenty studies have consistently demonstrated the deleterious implications of environmental noise-induced annoyance on adolescents’ educational attainment and cognitive capabilities [25, 26]. Studies have demonstrated that even within healthy population, environmental noise functions as a distractor, increasing cognitive burden and compromising operational efficiency and task completion by diverting and redirecting cognitive resources away from the task to accomplish [27]. It is true that executive functioning undergoes significant development throughout adolescence [28]. However, studies have demonstrated that adolescent’s cognitive abilities to comprehend and foresee stressors are comparatively limited and underdeveloped, and their coping mechanisms have not yet fully developed [29, 30]. Therefore, considering their concurrent physical and cognitive growth, there exists a conceivable risk that noise exposure may engender enduring and persistent deleterious consequences [31].

The relationship between subjective occupational stress and mental well-being was explored using the effort-reward imbalance (ERI) questionnaire, a validated psychosocial measure, founded on Siegrist et al.’s model [22]. This tool assesses the balance between work-related effort and subsequent rewards obtained, and applies beyond workplace settings, extending to social relationships within the household, including marital and parental relationships, as well as other civic responsibilities, thereby reinforcing the model’s broad applicability [32, 33]. Moreover, overcommitment - a coping pattern defined by an incapacity to disengage from work in favor of recovery- was assessed by retrieving individual responses to increased effort and minimal reward obtained in the workplace [34, 35]. In line with these findings, further epidemiological and experimental psychobiological investigations also suggest that effort-reward imbalance contributes to increase the stimulation of the autonomic system, causing emotional and psycho-physiological stress reactions, and inducing a range of detrimental health outcomes [36,37,38]. Studies have shown that individuals perceiving low social support within the work environment as well as lacking a sense of motivation through work-related rewards were significantly associated with having hyperacusis [39], which is defined as debilitating loudness intolerance disorder, associated with an abnormal annoyance to noise [40]. Being overcommitted at work increased the risk of hyperacusis that can evoke noise annoyance [39, 40]. The lack of reciprocity between efforts expended, rewards obtained and overcommitment was inversely associated with overall work-related fulfillment and satisfaction [41,42,43]. Among the primary mechanisms contributing to these outcomes is learned helplessness, characterized by an individual’s sense of powerlessness due to perceived lack of control over noxious environmental stimuli [64,65,66] which can increase vulnerability to stress and impair task performance.

Furthermore, studies have documented the pervasive influence of noise pollution, noting elevated levels of annoyance, and reduced quality of life. However, the impact of noise-induced annoyance on cognitive performance remain largely unexplored [44, 45].

Considering the increased vulnerability of adolescence to the effects of noise pollution, a study conducted within Lebanon, a country marked by noise exposure levels exceeding the international guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) [46, 47], would yield valuable insights into the complex interplay of these variables and thus hold significant research merit. The primary objective of the current study was to evaluate the association between noise-induced annoyance and the cognitive performance within the Lebanese adolescent population. Nonetheless, the existing corpus of research remains limited in its comprehensive examination regarding the relationship between noise annoyance and the cognitive skills in relation to psychosocial work aspects, particularly within the adolescent demographic. In this study, we aimed to adapt the ERI model within an educational environment, where “working conditions” denote the academic work students engage in both at school and at home, adapting its principles to a setting which varies from the model’s customary workplace applications. Accordingly, our research aimed to assess the hypothesis that the psychosocial work aspects-namely effort, reward, and overcommitment- serve as moderators, exerting an influence on the relationship between noise-induced annoyance and the cognitive performance within the Lebanese adolescent population. In this context, we hypothesize that psychosocial work factors (effort/reward/overcommitment) may alter the degree to which noise annoyance affects cognitive performance, with varying levels of effort, reward and overcommitment potentially intensifying or reducing the impact of noise annoyance on specific cognitive processes, such as attention, memory and executive functioning (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Moderating effect of effort/reward/overcommitment between noise annoyance and cognitive performance

Full size image

Methods

Study design and procedure

An online anonymous survey served as the basis for this descriptive cross-sectional observational study. The voluntary survey was conducted on the Lebanese people throughout Lebanon between April and May 2023. A snowball sampling strategy was implemented for the survey, by using the online Google Forms platform. Distribution of the poll extended across various social media platforms such as WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and Facebook. Adolescents who chose not to participate in the questionnaire were omitted from the study. The “data duplicate” feature in excel was employed to verify that no participate submitted duplicate responses. Participants were instructed in the introductory section to obtain parental consent prior to engaging in the survey. Upon granting digital informed consent, participants were directed to complete the instruments described above, which were arranged in a pre-randomized order to mitigate any potential order effects. The survey guaranteed anonymity, and participants voluntarily participated without receiving any form of compensation.

Minimal sample size

A minimum sample size of 473 adolescents was considered essential to ensure adequate statistical analysis, as determined by the G-power software (Multiple regression: R2 deviation from zero), based on R2 = 0.05, alpha error = 0.05, power of 95% and 10 predictors to be included in the final model.

Questionnaire

The self-administered questionnaire, written in Arabic, Lebanon’s native language, was provided anonymously and required approximately 20 min for completion. Participants were specifically advised to complete the questionnaire without seeking assistance in order to ensure the integrity of their responses. The questionnaire’s first section assessed participants’ sociodemographic information. Furthermore, the household crowding index was calculated by dividing the total number of individuals residing in the household by the total number of rooms, with exclusion of those designated for bathroom and kitchen functions [48]. The subsequent section of the questionnaire incorporated the following scales:

Noise annoyance scale

Noise annoyance was assessed using a single question “Does noise in your home or school environment annoy you?” and rated from 1 (= never) to 5 (= always). The question was inspired from the study of Stansfeld et al. [49] where participants self-reported noise annoyance by answering the following question: “Does traffic noise at home annoy you?” We reformulated the question by replacing “at home” by “home or school environment” to fit the study objectives.

Effort reward in school scale

The study consisted of a 19-item questionnaire and involved the assessment of extrinsic components such as the effort component, comprising 5 elements related to homework and expectations, and the reward component, which consisted of 11 items including academic success, esteem, and educational prospects, as well as the intrinsic factor of overcommitment, which included 3 elements [50]. Using a five-point Likert scale, survey respondents rated their level of agreement with the questionnaire statements, with options spanning across “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Higher scores on this scale reflect increased levels of effort, reward and overcommitment. The Cronbach’s alpha values were assessed, indicating the ensuing values: effort (α = 0.82), reward (α = 0.80) and overcommitment (α = 0.80).

Language-revised learning, executive, and attention functioning (LEAF) scale

The LEAF, consisting of 55 items, serves as a questionnaire administered to parents, teachers, or self-report evaluations, aimed at assessing executive functioning, associated neurocognitive functions, as well as academic proficiency across both children and adults. Responses to all items within the survey were rated using a four-point Likert scale (0 = never to 4 = very often) [51]. Authorization to use this scale was granted by Pr. William Kronenberger. This scale yields 12 scores as follows: comprehension and conceptual learning (α = 0.85), factual memory (α = 0.84), attention (α = 0.87), processing speed (α = 0.84), visual-spatial organization (α = 0.78), sustained sequential processing (α = 0.82), working memory (α = 0.86), novel problem solving (α = 0.85), mathematics skills (α = 0.86), basic reading skills (α = 0.90) and written expression skills (α = 0.83). Higher scores indicate worse aspect in each dimension. The scale was administered in Arabic; the forward translation was done by one translator. An expert committee formed by healthcare professionals and a language professional verified the Arabic translated version. A backward translation was then performed by a second translator, unaware of the initial English version. The back-translated English questionnaire was subsequently compared to the original English one, by the expert committee. Discrepancies related to inadequate expressions and concepts, confusing in meaning and slightly off in meaning during the reconciliation of the back translated questionnaire with the original source were resolved by consensus.

Statistical analysis

The SPSS software v.26 was employed for statistical analysis. The normal distribution assumption was satisfied for all LEAF subscale scores, given that skewness and kurtosis values varied within ± 1. A multivariable analysis MANCOVA was conducted taking noise annoyance as the independent variable and each LEAF subscale score as the dependent variable. The moderation analyses were completed using PROCESS MACRO (an SPSS add-on) v3.4 model 1 [52], using effort/reward/overcommitment as moderators in the relationship between noise annoyance and each LEAF subscale score. Interaction terms were probed by examining the association of one predictor with psychotic-like experiences at the mean, 1 SD below the mean and 1 SD above the mean of the moderator. Results were adjusted over age, gender and household crowding index (taken as covariates in each model). P <.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

Results

Sociodemographic and other characteristics of the participants

The sample consisted of 1269 adolescents, exhibiting a mean age of 15.68 ± 1.75 years (min = 12; max = 18), and 771 (60.8%) females. The mean household crowding index was 1.28 ± 0.62 persons/room. Other descriptive results can be found in Table 1.

Table 1 Sociodemographic and other characteristics of the participants
Full size table

Bivariate analysis

Higher mean mathematics skills, effort and overcommitment scores were significantly found in females compared to males (Table 2). It is noteworthy that none of the scores was significantly associated with age and household crowding index (Table 3).

Table 2 Comparison of LEAF scores between genders
Full size table
Table 3 Pearson correlation matrix
Full size table

Multivariable analysis

The MANCOVA results revealed that higher noise annoyance was significantly associated with worse memory function, comprehension and conceptual learning, factual memory, attention, processing speed, visual spatial organization, sustained sequential processing, working memory, novel problem solving, mathematics skills, basic reading skills and written expression skills (higher scores for all) (Table 4).

Table 4 MANCOVA analysis of factors associated with the scores
Full size table

Moderation analysis with each LEAF subscales score taken as the dependent variable

The detailed outcomes of the moderation analysis, incorporating effort/reward/overcommitment as moderators in the relationship between noise annoyance and memory/attention/learning, are delineated in Table 5. All results were adjusted over the following variables: age, gender and household crowding index. The interactions noise annoyance by effort was significantly associated with memory function, sustained sequential processing and mathematics skills. The interaction noise annoyance by reward was significantly associated with memory function, attention, processing speed, sustained sequential processing, working memory and mathematics skills, whereas the interaction noise annoyance by overcommitment was significantly associated with factual memory, attention and processing speed (Table 5).

Table 5 Moderation analysis taking noise annoyance as the independent variable, effort/reward/overcommitment as moderators and memory/attention/learning scores as dependent variables
Full size table

At low levels of effort, higher noise annoyance was significantly associated with worse memory function (Beta = 0.94; p =.002) and mathematics skills (Beta = 0.40; p =.002), whereas at low (Beta = 0.49; p <.001) and moderate (Beta = 0.29; p =.001) levels of effort, it was significantly associated with worse sustained sequential processing (Table 6, Models 1a, 2a and 3a).

At low and moderate levels of reward, higher noise annoyance was significantly associated with worse attention (Beta = 0.48; p <.001 and Beta = 0.20; p <.031 respectively; Model 2b), sustained sequential processing (Beta = 0.43; p <.001 and Beta = 0.22; p =.013 respectively; Model 2d) and working memory (Beta = 0.47; p <.001 and Beta = 0.28; p =.002 respectively; Model 2e). At low levels of reward, higher annoyance was significantly associated with worse memory function (Beta = 0.82; p =.007; Model 2a), processing speed (Beta = 0.38; p =.001; Model 2c) and mathematic skills (Beta = 0.28; p =.026; Model 2f).

Finally, at low and moderate levels of overcommitment, higher noise annoyance was significantly associated with worse factual memory (Beta = 0.49; p <.001 and Beta = 0.25; p =.005 respectively; Model 3a), worse attention (Beta = 0.45; p <.001 and Beta = 0.26; p =.005 respectively; Model 3b) and worse processing speed (Beta = 0.43; p <.001 and Beta = 0.23; p =.012 respectively; Model 3c).

Table 6 Conditional effects of the focal predictor (noise annoyance) at values of the moderators
Full size table

Discussion

Our initial hypotheses were to find a moderating effect of effort, reward and overcommitment between noise annoyance and each LEAF subscale. Some of those hypotheses were confirmed namely the moderating effect of (1) effort between noise annoyance and memory function, sustained sequential processing and mathematics skills, (2) of reward between noise annoyance and memory function, attention, processing speed, sustained sequential processing, working memory and mathematics skills, and (3) of overcommitment between noise annoyance and factual memory, attention and processing speed.

The current study yielded significant findings indicating a solid correlation between noise annoyance and its effects on cognitive performance among adolescents. Our findings demonstrated a strong association between higher noise annoyance and worse cognitive performance pertaining to the memory, learning, attention and overall executive function among adolescents, highlighting the intrinsic difficulties of this vulnerable age group in appropriately assessing threats emanating from stressors, along with their comparatively underdeveloped coping mechanisms relative to adults [28]. Our results align with various studies proposing that noise may impact adolescent’s cognitive skills and intellectual capabilities, particularly reading comprehension [53], memory [54], and impaired attention [55]. Furthermore, studies highlight a strong correlation between prolonged noise exposure and increased noise annoyance, reduced reading proficiency, memory function and performance on national standardized tests, in contrast to students unaffected by such auditory disturbances [56, 57]. Suggested mechanisms elucidating the impact of noise on adolescents’ cognitive faculties pertain to challenges encountered in communication, impaired attentional processes, increased levels of frustration owing to the effects of noise-induced annoyance as well as the ensuing consequences of disrupted sleep patterns on their overall academic and cognitive performance [25, 28]. Particularly, translational studies highlighted the detrimental effects of noise-induced annoyance on the central nervous system activity through elevated oxidative stress [58,59,60], imbalance in neurotransmitter levels, impaired cognition and genetic modifications [61,62,63].

In this study, effort, reward and overcommitment were posited as moderators, exerting an influence on the association between noise annoyance and distinct cognitive domains within Lebanese adolescents. At low levels of effort, reward and overcommitment, outcomes demonstrated consistent uniformity within specific cognitive domains, thereby highlighting that these factors, when experienced by adolescents subjected to noise-induced annoyance, contributed to adverse effects on specific areas of cognitive executive functioning. Analogous findings were observed for moderate levels of overcommitment across defined cognitive faculties. Furthermore, when examining moderate levels of reward, similar findings were demonstrated, exclusively within the specific cognitive domains encompassing attention, working memory and sustained sequential processing; conversely, in the case of moderate levels of effort, comparable results were observed, albeit solely associated with sustained sequential processing. Our findings align with studies indicating that the decreased cognitive efficiency due to noise interference might not only induce stress but also provoke enduring cognitive fatigue, stemming from the ineffective attempts to cope with noise and the ensuing decline in the engagement of cognitive faculties; the detrimental effects of noise on task performance being greater for adolescents whose cognitive faculties are still developing [15]. Consequently, the decreased effort exerted due to cognitive fatigue considerably impact academic outcomes, leading to an overall decline in quality of life, withdrawal from social engagements and depressive symptoms [64].

Within this context, increased effort, reward and overcommitment become imperative for the execution of tasks among individuals who experience noise-induced annoyance, arising from the need to mitigate and counteract the disruption imposed upon cognitive processes by the auditory interference [65]. Accordingly, our results revealed that at high levels of effort, reward and overcommitment, no statistically significant influence was observed in the relationship between noise annoyance and the collective scope of studied cognitive domains.

Overall, the preceding observations accentuate the inherent interplay between the cognitive, motivational and emotional effects of noise. The investigation of the impact of noise-induced annoyance on cognitive performance among the adolescent demographic is gradually eliciting increasing scientific interest within the corpus body of research, primarily due to the growing concern over mounting levels of noise pollution [74, 78]. In this context, the efficacy of the task performance in the presence of noise is contingent upon various factors, encompassing the specific attributes of noise annoyance which is determined by three major factors according to Stallen [66]: subjective disturbance, perceived control and adaptive capacity for coping with noise annoyance [67]. First, perceived disturbance is related to noise annoyance both directly [66] and indirectly [68] and depends on attributes of the originating noisy source as well as a primary cognitive-emotional appraisal mechanism according to Lazarus’ theory of stress and coping [69]. Second, perceived control was suggested to be the primary non-acoustical factor contributing to noise-induced annoyance, according to Stallen [66], and is a component that exerts an impact on annoyance through an alternative mechanism [69]. Last but not least, noise annoyance was found to be a prerequisite for coping which is deemed as a reappraisal of an individual’s surroundings [68, 69]. In accordance with the transactional model of stress and coping proposed by Lazarus and Folkman, coping strategies may be characterized as dynamic and adaptive efforts exerted by individuals to manage available resources in response to the stressful transaction, and are subsequently perceived as taxing or surpassing the individual’s capabilities and resources [6].

When coping strategies prove to be ineffective, indicating that the perceived threat posed by noise surpasses the available internal or external resources to confront the threat, such as perceived control as well as coping capacity, psychological stress emerge in the form of noise annoyance reactions will arise and cognitive fatigue takes hold [47]. In relation to noise, pivotal considerations entail the potential of an individual to either turn off the noise, or perceiving the capacity to do so, as well as the conviction in one’s ability to effectively execute a task in the presence of noise [47]. Should an individual experiencing a noise-induced annoyance harbor the belief that their competence (internal attribution) for task achievement amid noisy conditions is deficient, the likelihood of encountering failure rises, thereby decreasing expectancies for control and increasing susceptibility to helplessness [47]. In this context, the perception of control over the noise serves to attenuate the anticipated threat posed by the noise and concurrently reduces the belief in its potential harm. Moreover, engaging in active coping strategies in response to noise may effectively alleviate and mitigate any adverse consequences [31].

Accordingly, incorporating the functions of effort, reward and overcommitment as moderating variables offers valuable insights into how psychosocial work factors influence the relationship between noise-induced annoyance and cognitive performance in adolescents. These findings can inform clinical practice and guide targeted interventions designed to address both noise-induced annoyance and psychosocial factors, thus preventing the emergence of adverse cognitive outcomes among adolescents. Potential interventions include the implementation of noise control measures such as improving sound insulation in schools, strategically organizing classrooms in quieter areas and adjusting class schedules to mitigate noise exposure. Furthermore, numerous studies suggest the benefits of structured relaxation techniques in educational settings to cope with noise-induced annoyance. These practices not only serve as de-stressing mechanisms but also promote enhanced focus and mental resilience [70]. For example, implementing regular breaks, along with guided meditation sessions or mindfulness practices in designated “meditation rooms” can significantly enhance sensory awareness, facilitate recovery from auditory distractions and improve concentration levels [70,71,72]. In fact, research has proven that relaxation techniques such as mindfulness and meditation not only sharpen students’ cognitive abilities, thereby increasing academic engagement, but also foster emotional balance and resilience [71,72,73].

Continuous evaluation of these strategies is essential to ensure their effectiveness in reducing noise-related cognitive impairments in adolescents.

Limitations

This study was subject to several limitations. A notable limitation to this study originates from the restricted applied framework of the environmental health determinants, within the examination of the noise annoyance influence on cognitive functioning. In fact, evidence suggests that air pollution may moderate or mediate the relationship between noise-induced annoyance and cognitive functioning across the life course [74]. Moreover, studies discovered a propensity for the simultaneous presence and accumulation of multiple environmental stressors (noise, light pollution, air pollution, psychosocial stress) within residential areas, along with additional stressors, including litter, debris and dirt, that might contribute to adverse health outcomes among adolescents [74, 75]. These findings further underscore the necessity to conduct future large-scale exposome studies that incorporate a comprehensive array of environmental health determinations and develop comprehensive models to steer prospective research investigations [75,76,77]. We did not ask about the area of living (rural vs. urban), which predisposes us to a residual confounding bias.

Moreover, future research should consider the applied noise as a comprehensive attribute, encompassing both qualitative and quantitative characteristics, which encompasses, in addition to the duration of noise exposure, the mean sound pressure levels and their frequencies [78]. Indeed, systematic reviews have revealed variations in evidence regarding each noise source individually, with the strength of evidence being more pronounced for certain noise sources compared to others [15]. In fact, studies have shown that adolescents reported diverse levels of annoyance depending on the nature of the auditory stimuli, highlighting the necessity for additional research to elucidate the different effects of distinct noise-inducing sources [78]. Consequently, given that noise annoyance is an inherently subjective appraisal reaction subject to individual variation, depending on the specific noise source, a comprehensive assessment of noise-induced annoyance and its implications requires a distinct assessment of every individual source of noise. The inclusion of noise source characteristics in research studies is necessary to facilitate precise discrimination between effects attributable solely to the stimuli and those modulated by subjective determinants [79]. Therefore, the lack of incorporation of personal attributes including negative affectivity, noise sensitivity and personality traits within the study framework raises the possibility of confounding effects arising from these factors [80].

Conclusion

In conclusion, the results of this current study offer solid evidence revealing a statistically significant association between noise annoyance and cognitive performance within the Lebanese adolescent demographic. In addition, it confirms the role of the psychosocial work aspects (effort/reward/commitment) as moderators in the relationship between noise-induced annoyance and cognitive performance among adolescents. Prospective human and animal research studies are warranted to investigate specific biomarkers of oxidative stress as well as the involvement of stress-related hormonal pathways in the noise-mediated stress responses, providing a quantitative measure of the extent of the adverse health effects attributed to noise-induced annoyance. These research initiatives hold the potential to offer valuable insights into the neurobiological and physiological mechanisms underlying the adverse health implications of noise-induced exposure, which could potentially contribute to cognitive impairment among adolescents. Ultimately, this advanced knowledge can serve as a solid foundation for clinicians and researchers for the development of targeted public health strategies and tailored interventions designed specifically for the adolescent population.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on a reasonable request.

References

  1. Giles-Corti B, Vernez-Moudon A, Reis R, Turrell G, Dannenberg AL, Badland H, Foster S, Lowe M, Sallis JF, Stevenson M, et al. City planning and population health: a global challenge. Lancet. 2016;388(10062):2912–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hammersen F, Niemann H, Hoebel J. Environmental Noise Annoyance and Mental Health in adults: findings from the cross-sectional German Health Update (GEDA) Study 2012. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016, 13(10).

  3. Regional Office for Europe. Burden of disease from environmental noise: quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/326424

  4. Westman JC, Walters JR. Noise and stress: a comprehensive approach. Environ Health Perspect. 1981;41:291–309.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Basner M, Babisch W, Davis A, Brink M, Clark C, Janssen S, Stansfeld S. Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health. Lancet. 2014;383(9925):1325–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Biggs A, Brough P, Drummond S. Lazarus and Folkman’s psychological stress and coping theory. The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice 2017:349–364.

  7. Jafari MJ, Khosrowabadi R, Khodakarim S, Mohammadian F. The effect of noise exposure on cognitive performance and brain activity patterns. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019;7(17):2924–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Schmidt FP, Basner M, Kroger G, Weck S, Schnorbus B, Muttray A, Sariyar M, Binder H, Gori T, Warnholtz A, et al. Effect of nighttime aircraft noise exposure on endothelial function and stress hormone release in healthy adults. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(45):3508–a3514.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Walker ED, Brammer A, Cherniack MG, Laden F, Cavallari JM. Cardiovascular and stress responses to short-term noise exposures-A panel study in healthy males. Environ Res. 2016;150:391–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Babisch W. Noise and health. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113(1):A14–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Jensen HAR, Rasmussen B, Ekholm O. Neighbour and traffic noise annoyance: a nationwide study of associated mental health and perceived stress. Eur J Public Health. 2018;28(6):1050–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dzhambov AM, Lercher P. Road Traffic noise exposure and Depression/Anxiety: an updated systematic review and Meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019, 16(21).

  13. Beutel ME, Brahler E, Ernst M, Klein E, Reiner I, Wiltink J, Michal M, Wild PS, Schulz A, Munzel T, et al. Noise annoyance predicts symptoms of depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance 5 years later. Findings from the Gutenberg Health Study. Eur J Public Health. 2020;30(3):516–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Guski R, Schreckenberg D, Schuemer R. WHO Environmental noise guidelines for the European Region: a systematic review on environmental noise and annoyance. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017, 14(12).

  15. Clark C, Paunovic K. WHO Environmental noise guidelines for the European Region: a systematic review on environmental noise and cognition. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018, 15(2).

  16. Basner M, McGuire S. WHO Environmental noise guidelines for the European Region: a systematic review on environmental noise and effects on Sleep. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018, 15(3).

  17. Kempen EV, Casas M, Pershagen G, Foraster M. WHO Environmental noise guidelines for the European Region: a systematic review on environmental noise and Cardiovascular and Metabolic effects: a Summary. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018, 15(2).

  18. Burden of disease from environmental noise. Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/326424

  19. Beutel ME, Junger C, Klein EM, Wild P, Lackner K, Blettner M, Binder H, Michal M, Wiltink J, Brahler E, et al. Noise annoyance is Associated with Depression and anxiety in the General Population- the contribution of aircraft noise. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(5):e0155357.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Lundquist P, Holmberg K, Landstrom U. Annoyance and effects on work from environmental noise at school. Noise Health. 2000;2(8):39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Enmarker I, Boman E. Noise annoyance responses of middle school pupils and teachers. J Environ Psychol. 2004;24(4):527–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Siegrist J, Starke D, Chandola T, Godin I, Marmot M, Niedhammer I, Peter R. The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(8):1483–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Minichilli F, Gorini F, Ascari E, Bianchi F, Coi A, Fredianelli L, Licitra G, Manzoli F, Mezzasalma L, Cori L. Annoyance Judgment and measurements of environmental noise: a focus on Italian secondary schools. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018, 15(2).

  24. Chere B, Kirkham N. The negative impact of noise on adolescents’ executive function: an online study in the Context of Home-Learning during a pandemic. Front Psychol. 2021;12:715301.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Clark C, Sörqvist P. A 3 year update on the influence of noise on performance and behavior. Noise Health. 2012;14(61):292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Haines MM, Stansfeld SA, Job RS, Berglund B, Head J. Chronic aircraft noise exposure, stress responses, mental health and cognitive performance in school children. Psychol Med. 2001;31(2):265–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McGarrigle R, Munro KJ, Dawes P, Stewart AJ, Moore DR, Barry JG, Amitay S. Listening effort and fatigue: what exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group ‘white paper’. Int J Audiol. 2014;53(7):433–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Diamond A. Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64:135–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen S, Krantz DS, Evans GW, Stokols D, Kelly S. Aircraft noise and children: longitudinal and cross-sectional evidence on adaptation to noise and the effectiveness of noise abatement. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1981;40(2):331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shield BM, Dockrell JE. The effects of noise on children at school: a review. Building Acoust. 2003;10(2):97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ali SAA. Study effects of school noise on learning achievement and annoyance in Assiut city, Egypt. Appl Acoust. 2013;74(4):602–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jachens L, Houdmont J, Thomas R. Work-related stress in a humanitarian context: a qualitative investigation. Disasters. 2018;42(4):619–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Eriksson CB, Lopes Cardozo B, Foy DW, Sabin M, Ager A, Snider L, Scholte WF, Kaiser R, Olff M, Rijnen B. Predeployment mental health and trauma exposure of expatriate humanitarian aid workers: risk and resilience factors. Traumatology. 2013;19(1):41–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Siegrist J, Li J. Associations of extrinsic and Intrinsic Components of Work Stress with Health: a systematic review of evidence on the effort-reward imbalance model. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(4):432.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Shang Guan CY, Li Y, Ma HL. The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital on the Association between Occupational Stress and job satisfaction among Township Cadres in a specific Province of China: a cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017, 14(9).

  36. Leineweber C, Bernhard-Oettel C, Eib C, Peristera P, Li J. The mediating effect of exhaustion in the relationship between effort-reward imbalance and turnover intentions: a 4-year longitudinal study from Sweden. J Occup Health. 2021;63(1):e12203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Dragano N, Siegrist J, Nyberg ST, Lunau T, Fransson EI, Alfredsson L, Bjorner JB, Borritz M, Burr H, Erbel R, et al. Effort-reward imbalance at Work and Incident Coronary Heart Disease: a Multicohort Study of 90,164 individuals. Epidemiology. 2017;28(4):619–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Inoue M, Tsurugano S, Yano E. Job stress and mental health of permanent and fixed-term workers measured by effort-reward imbalance model, depressive complaints, and clinic utilization. J Occup Health. 2011;53(2):93–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Coelho CB, Sanchez TG, Tyler RS. Hyperacusis, sound annoyance, and loudness hypersensitivity in children. Prog Brain Res. 2007;166:169–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Salvi R, Chen GD, Manohar S. Hyperacusis: loudness intolerance, fear, annoyance and pain. Hear Res. 2022;426:108648.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Voltmer E, Rosta J, Siegrist J, Aasland OG. Job stress and job satisfaction of physicians in private practice: comparison of German and Norwegian physicians. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2012;85(7):819–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Chen J, Wang Y, Du W, Liu S, Xiao Z, Wu Y. Analysis on the relationship between effort-reward imbalance and job satisfaction among family doctors in China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):992.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Naeem A, Shaikh AA, Hassan SU, Abid H, Tahir A. Frequency of Workplace Burnout among Postgraduate trainees in a Teaching Hospital in Mirpur. Cureus. 2019;11(2):e4016.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Evans GW, Johnson D. Stress and open-office noise. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85(5):779–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cohen S. Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: a review of research and theory. Psychol Bull. 1980;88(1):82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Guidelines for Community Noise. WHO-Expert Task Force Meeting, London, United Kingdom. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/66217

  47. Korfali SI, Massoud M. Assessment of community noise problem in Greater Beirut Area, Lebanon. Environ Monit Assess. 2003;84(3):203–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Melki I, Beydoun H, Khogali M, Tamim H, Yunis K. Household crowding index: a correlate of socioeconomic status and inter-pregnancy spacing in an urban setting. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(6):476–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Stansfeld S, Clark C, Smuk M, Gallacher J, Babisch W. Road traffic noise, noise sensitivity, noise annoyance, psychological and physical health and mortality. Environ Health. 2021;20(1):32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Li J, Shang L, Wang T, Siegrist J. Measuring effort-reward imbalance in school settings: a novel approach and its association with self-rated health. J Epidemiol. 2010;20(2):111–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Marschark M, Kronenberger WG, Rosica M, Borgna G, Convertino C, Durkin A, Machmer E, Schmitz KL. Social maturity and executive function among deaf learners. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2017;22(1):22–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. Guilford; 2017.

  53. Hygge S. Classroom experiments on the effects of different noise sources and sound levels on long-term recall and recognition in children. Appl Cogn Psychology: Official J Soc Appl Res Memory Cognition. 2003;17(8):895–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Evans GW, Lepore SJ. Nonauditory effects of noise on children: a critical review. Children’s Environ 1993:31–51.

  55. Niemann H, Bonnefoy X, Braubach M, Hecht K, Maschke C, Rodrigues C, Robbel N. Noise-induced annoyance and morbidity results from the pan-european LARES study. Noise Health. 2006;8(31):63–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hahad O, Prochaska JH, Daiber A, Muenzel T. Environmental Noise-Induced Effects on Stress Hormones, Oxidative Stress, and Vascular Dysfunction: Key Factors in the Relationship between Cerebrocardiovascular and Psychological Disorders. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2019, 2019:4623109.

  57. Haines MM, Stansfeld SA, Job RF, Berglund B, Head J. Chronic aircraft noise exposure, stress responses, mental health and cognitive performance in school children. Psychol Med. 2001;31(2):265–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Daiber A, Kroller-Schon S, Frenis K, Oelze M, Kalinovic S, Vujacic-Mirski K, Kuntic M, Bayo Jimenez MT, Helmstadter J, Steven S, et al. Environmental noise induces the release of stress hormones and inflammatory signaling molecules leading to oxidative stress and vascular dysfunction-signatures of the internal exposome. BioFactors. 2019;45(4):495–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Munzel T, Sorensen M, Daiber A. Transportation noise pollution and cardiovascular disease. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2021;18(9):619–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kroller-Schon S, Daiber A, Steven S, Oelze M, Frenis K, Kalinovic S, Heimann A, Schmidt FP, Pinto A, Kvandova M, et al. Crucial role for Nox2 and sleep deprivation in aircraft noise-induced vascular and cerebral oxidative stress, inflammation, and gene regulation. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(38):3528–39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Guo L, Li PH, Li H, Colicino E, Colicino S, Wen Y, Zhang R, Feng X, Barrow TM, Cayir A, et al. Effects of environmental noise exposure on DNA methylation in the brain and metabolic health. Environ Res. 2017;153:73–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Munzel T, Kroller-Schon S, Oelze M, Gori T, Schmidt FP, Steven S, Hahad O, Roosli M, Wunderli JM, Daiber A, et al. Adverse Cardiovascular effects of Traffic noise with a focus on Nighttime noise and the New WHO noise guidelines. Annu Rev Public Health. 2020;41:309–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Szalma JL, Hancock PA. Noise effects on human performance: a meta-analytic synthesis. Psychol Bull. 2011;137(4):682–707.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Pichora-Fuller MK, Kramer SE, Eckert MA, Edwards B, Hornsby BW, Humes LE, Lemke U, Lunner T, Matthen M, Mackersie CL. Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear. 2016;37:S5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hetu R, Riverin L, Lalande N, Getty L, St-Cyr C. Qualitative analysis of the handicap associated with occupational hearing loss. Br J Audiol. 1988;22(4):251–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Stallen PJM. A theoretical framework for environmental noise annoyance. Noise Health. 1999;1(3):69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Park SH, Lee PJ, Yang KS, Kim KW. Relationships between non-acoustic factors and subjective reactions to floor impact noise in apartment buildings. J Acoust Soc Am. 2016;139(3):1158–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Kroesen M, Molin EJ, van Wee B. Testing a theory of aircraft noise annoyance: a structural equation analysis. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;123(6):4250–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Berjot S, Gillet N. Stress and coping with discrimination and stigmatization. Front Psychol. 2011;2:33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Johnstone JM, Ribbers A, Jenkins D, Atchley R, Gustafsson H, Nigg JT, Wahbeh H, Oken B. Classroom-based mindfulness training reduces anxiety in adolescents: acceptability and effectiveness of a cluster-randomized pilot study. J Restor Med 2020, 10(1).

  71. Cahn BR, Polich J. Meditation states and traits: EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies. Psychol Bull. 2006;132(2):180–211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Britton WB, Lepp NE, Niles HF, Rocha T, Fisher NE, Gold JS. A randomized controlled pilot trial of classroom-based mindfulness meditation compared to an active control condition in sixth-grade children. J Sch Psychol. 2014;52(3):263–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Crescentini C, Capurso V, Furlan S, Fabbro F. Mindfulness-oriented meditation for primary School children: effects on attention and Psychological Well-Being. Front Psychol. 2016;7:805.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Daiber A, Munzel T. Special issue impact of environmental pollution and stress on redox signaling and oxidative stress pathways. Redox Biol. 2020;37:101621.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Clifford A, Lang L, Chen R, Anstey KJ, Seaton A. Exposure to air pollution and cognitive functioning across the life course–A systematic literature review. Environ Res. 2016;147:383–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Sentis A, Sunyer J, Dalmau-Bueno A, Andiarena A, Ballester F, Cirach M, Estarlich M, Fernandez-Somoano A, Ibarluzea J, Iniguez C, et al. Prenatal and postnatal exposure to NO(2) and child attentional function at 4-5years of age. Environ Int. 2017;106:170–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Munzel T, Daiber A, Steven S, Tran LP, Ullmann E, Kossmann S, Schmidt FP, Oelze M, Xia N, Li H, et al. Effects of noise on vascular function, oxidative stress, and inflammation: mechanistic insight from studies in mice. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(37):2838–49.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Connolly DM, Dockrell JE, Shield BM, Conetta R, Cox TJ. Adolescents’ perceptions of their school’s acoustic environment: the development of an evidence based questionnaire. Noise Health. 2013;15(65):269–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Smith A. An update on noise and performance: comment on Szalma and Hancock (2011). Psychol Bull. 2012;138(6):1262–8. discussion 1269–1273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Hill EM, Billington R, Krageloh C. Noise sensitivity and diminished health: testing moderators and mediators of the relationship. Noise Health. 2014;16(68):47–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all participants.

Funding

None.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Souheil Hallit and Vanessa Azzi are co-last authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, 67000, France

    Noad-Maria Azzi

  2. Department of Psychology and Education, School of Arts and Sciences, Lebanese American University, Jbeil, Lebanon

    Sahar Obeid

  3. School of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, P.O. Box 446, Jounieh, Lebanon

    Rabih Hallit, Souheil Hallit & Vanessa Azzi

  4. Department of Infectious Disease, Bellevue Medical Center, Mansourieh, Lebanon

    Rabih Hallit

  5. Department of Infectious Disease, Notre Dame des Secours, University Hospital Center, Byblos, Lebanon

    Rabih Hallit

  6. College of Pharmacy, Gulf Medical University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates

    Diana Malaeb

  7. Department of Biomedical Sciences, School of Arts and Sciences, Lebanese International University, Bekaa, Lebanon

    Sami El Khatib

  8. Center for Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics (CAMB), Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST), Hawally, Kuwait

    Sami El Khatib

  9. School of Pharmacy, Lebanese International University, Beirut, Lebanon

    Mariam Dabbous & Fouad Sakr

  10. École Doctorale Sciences de la Vie et de la Santé, Université Paris-Est Créteil, Institut Mondor de Recherche Biomédicale, Créteil, France

    Fouad Sakr

  11. Department of Psychology, College of Humanities, Effat University, Jeddah, 21478, Saudi Arabia

    Souheil Hallit

  12. Applied Science Research Center, Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan

    Souheil Hallit

Authors
  1. Noad-Maria Azzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sahar Obeid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rabih Hallit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Diana Malaeb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sami El Khatib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mariam Dabbous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Fouad Sakr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Souheil Hallit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. Vanessa Azzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Vanessa Azzi and Souheil Hallit designed the study; Diana Malaeb, Sami El-Khatib, Mariam Dabbous and Fouad Sakr collected the data; Nohad-Maria Azzi drafted the manuscript; Souheil Hallit conducted the analysis and interpreted the results; Rabih Hallit, Diana Malaeb and Sahar Obeid reviewed the paper for intellectual content; all authors reviewed the final manuscript and gave their consent.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sahar Obeid.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Lebanese International University Ethics and Research Committee approved this study protocol (2023RC-017-LIUSOP). Participants were asked to get their parents’ approval before filling the survey; an electronic informed consent was considered obtained from each participant when submitting the online form. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Azzi, NM., Obeid, S., Hallit, R. et al. The moderating effect of the psychosocial working conditions (effort/reward/overcommitment) on the association between noise annoyance and cognitive performance among adolescents. BMC Psychol 13, 188 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s40359-025-02409-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s40359-025-02409-5

Keywords

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

Contact us