Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Noise pollution and human cognition: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of recent evidence

Open access
Thompson, Rhiannon, Smith, Rachel B., Bou Karim, Yasmin, Shen, Chen, Drummond, Kayleigh, Teng, Chloe, Toledano, Mireille B.·2022·Environment International

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This systematic review provides a comprehensive synthesis of recent epidemiological evidence that environmental noise negatively impacts human cognition. METHODS: We update a prior review with recent publications (PROSPERO CRD42019151923). The strength of evidence for associations was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) framework. We also conducted random-effects meta-analyses where suitable. RESULTS: 16 studies were identified and reviewed in tandem with 32 studies previously reviewed by Clark & Paunovic (2018). A meta-analysis from 3 studies found that reading comprehension scores in quiet classrooms were 0.80 (95% confidence interval: 0.40; 1.20) points higher than children in noisier classrooms. Meta-analysis of the impact of 1 dB (dB) increase in environmental noise on reading and language abilities gave a pooled beta coefficient of -0.11(95% confidence interval: -0.32; 0.10). A meta-analysis of Odds Ratios (OR) from 3 studies found higher odds of cognitive impairment in people aged 45 + with higher residential noise exposure (OR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.18;1.61). After qualitative synthesis of remaining studies, there was high quality evidence for an association between environmental noise and cognitive impairment in middle-to-older adults, moderate quality evidence for an association between aircraft noise and reading and language in children, and moderate quality evidence against an association between aircraft noise and executive functioning in children. Generally the literature was supportive for other cognitive outcomes, but with low or very low-quality evidence. DISCUSSION: The evidence so far suggests that noise exposure is associated with cognition, but more good quality research using standardised methodology is required to corroborate these results and to allow for precise risk estimation by larger meta-analyses. There is also a need for more research with older teenagers and young-to-middle aged adults, on the synergistic effects of noise and air pollution, and in Africa, Central and South America, South Asia and Australasia.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106905

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 70 references

Metadata

Authors
Thompson, R., Smith, R. B., Bou Karim, Y., Shen, C., Drummond, K., Teng, C., & Toledano, M. B.
Venue
Environment International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-01
Volume
158
Pages
106905
ISSN
0160-4120 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3207601317
Cited by
280
References
70
FWCI
8.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Noise pollution and human cognition: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of recent evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106905
The paper
Thompson, R., Smith, R. B., Bou Karim, Y., Shen, C., Drummond, K., Teng, C., & Toledano, M. B. (2022). Noise pollution and human cognition: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of recent evidence. Environment International. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106905

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.