第1段

In general, it is plausible to suppose that we should prefer peace and quiet to noise. And yet most of us have had the experience of having to adjust to sleeping in the mountains or the countryside because it was initially ‘too quiet’, an experience that suggests that humans are capable of adapting to a wide range of noise levels. Research supports this view. For example, Glass and Singer (1972) exposed people to short bursts of very loud noise and then measured their ability to work out problems and their physiological reactions to the noise. The noise was quite disruptive at first, but after about four minutes the subjects were doing just as well on their tasks as control subjects who were not exposed to noise. Their physiological arousal also declined quickly to the same levels as those of the control subjects.

第1段：

总的来说，我们普遍认为安静和宁静胜过嘈杂声音。然而，大多数人都有过在山区或乡村调整睡眠的经验，因为起初环境太“安静”，这种经历表明人类能够适应各种噪音水平。研究支持了这个观点。例如，Glass和Singer（1972年）让人们暴露在短时间内非常响亮的噪音中，然后测量他们解决问题的能力和噪音对他们生理反应的影响。起初，噪音相当干扰，但大约四分钟后，受试者在任务上和没有接触噪音的对照组上表现出同样好的成绩。他们的生理兴奋也迅速下降到与对照组相同的水平。

第2段

But there are limits to adaptation and loud noise becomes more troublesome if the person is required to concentrate on more than one task. For example, high noise levels interfered with the performance of subjects who were required to monitor three dials at a time, a task not unlike that of an aeroplane pilot or an air-traffic controller (Broadbent, 1957). Similarly,  noise did not affect a subject’s ability to track a moving line with a steering wheel, but it did interfere with the subject’s ability to repeat numbers while tracking (Finkelman and Glass, 1970).

第2段：

但是，适应也有其限度，如果一个人需要集中精力完成多项任务，大声噪音会变得更加麻烦。例如，高噪音水平干扰了需要同时监控三个刻度盘的受试者的表现，这与飞行员或空中交通管制员的任务类似（Broadbent，1957年）。同样，噪音不会影响受试者用方向盘跟踪移动的线条的能力，但会干扰受试者在跟踪时重复数字的能力（Finkelman和Glass，1970年）。

第3段

Probably the most significant finding from research on noise is that its predictability is more important than how loud it is. We are much more able to ‘tune out’ chronic background noise, even if it is quite loud, than to work under circumstances with unexpected intrusions of noise. In the Glass and Singer study, in which subjects were exposed to bursts of noise as they worked on a task, some subjects heard loud bursts and others heard soft bursts. For some subjects, the bursts were spaced exactly one minute apart (predictable noise); others heard the same amount of noise overall, but the bursts occurred at random intervals (unpredictable noise). Subjects reported finding the predictable and unpredictable noise equally annoying, and all subjects performed at about the same level during the noise portion of the experiment. But the different noise conditions had quite different after-effects when the subjects were required to proofread written material under conditions of no noise. As shown in Table 1 the unpredictable noise produced more errors in the later proofreading task than predictable noise; and soft, unpredictable noise actually produced slightly more errors on this task than the loud, predictable noise.

第3段：

关于噪音的研究中，可能最重要的发现是，噪音的可预测性比其响度更重要。即使是相当响亮的持续背景噪音，我们也更能够“调节出去”，而不能适应在噪音突然干扰的情况下工作。在Glass和Singer的研究中，受试者在完成任务时听到了噪音突发爆发声，有些受试者听到了响亮的爆发声，而其他人听到了轻声爆发声。对于一些受试者来说，爆发声恰好每隔一分钟发生一次（可预测的噪音）；其他人听到的噪音总量相同，但爆发声间隔时间是随机的（不可预测的噪音）。受试者报告称可预测和不可预测的噪音同样令人烦恼，并且所有受试者在实验的噪音部分的表现水平都大致相同。但是，在受试者在没有噪音的情况下进行校对写作材料的任务时，不同的噪音条件产生了不同的后果。如表1所示，与可预测的噪音相比，不可预测的噪音在后续的校对任务中产生了更多错误；而轻声、不可预测的噪音在这个任务上实际上比响亮、可预测的噪音产生了稍微更多的错误。

第4段

Apparently, unpredictable noise produces more fatigue than predictable noise, but it takes a while for this fatigue to take its toll on performance.

第4段：

显然，不可预测的噪音比可预测的噪音更容易导致疲劳，但需要一段时间才能对表现产生影响。

第5段

Predictability is not the only variable that reduces or eliminates the negative effects of noise. Another is control. If the individual knows that he or she can control the noise, this seems to eliminate both its negative effects at the time and its after-effects. This is true even if the individual never actually exercises his or her option to turn the noise off (Glass and Singer, 1972). Just the knowledge that one has control is sufficient.

第5段：

可预测性不是减少或消除噪音负面影响的唯一变量，另一个变量是控制力。如果个体知道自己能够控制噪音，这似乎可以消除噪音的负面影响，无论个体是否真正选择关闭噪音（Glass和Singer，1972年）。仅仅知道自己有控制的权力就足够了。

第6段

The studies discussed so far exposed people to noise for only short periods and only transient effects were studied. But the major worry about noisy environments is that living day after day with chronic noise may produce serious, lasting effects. One study, suggesting that this worry is a realistic one, compared elementary school pupils who attended schools near Los Angeles’s busiest airport with students who attended schools in quiet neighbourhoods (Cohen et al., 1980). It was found that children from the noisy schools had higher blood pressure and were more easily distracted than those who attended the quiet schools. Moreover, there was no evidence of adaptability to the noise. In fact, the longer the children had attended the noisy schools, the more distractible they became. The effects also seem to be long lasting. A follow-up study showed that children who were moved to less noisy classrooms still showed greater distractibility one year later than students who had always been in the quiet schools (Cohen et al, 1981). It should be noted that the two groups of children had been carefully matched by the investigators so that they were comparable in age, ethnicity, race, and social class.

第6段：

到目前为止，讨论的研究仅暴露人们在短时间内接触噪音，并且只研究了暂时的效应。但是人们对嘈杂环境的主要担忧是长期生活在持续噪音中可能产生严重和持久的影响。一项研究比较了就读于洛杉矶最繁忙机场附近学校的小学生与就读于安静社区学校的学生（Cohen等，1980年）。发现来自嘈杂学校的儿童血压更高，更容易分心，而就读于安静学校的学生则相反。此外，没有适应噪音的证据。事实上，孩子们就读于嘈杂学校的时间越长，他们的分心程度越高。后续研究显示，被转移到噪音较小的教室的儿童在一年后仍然表现出比一直在安静学校就读的学生更容易分心（Cohen等，1981年）。值得注意的是，这两组儿童在年龄、民族、种族和社会阶层方面经过了研究人员的精心匹配，因此可比性很高。