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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & the PRISMA-P Group (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647 · Cited by 13,120
Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition
Lupien, S. J., McEwen, B. S., Gunnar, M. R., & Heim, C. (2009) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2639 · Cited by 6,256
How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial
Balduzzi, S., Rücker, G., & Schwarzer, G. (2019) · Evidence Based Mental Health · doi:10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117 · Cited by 5,827
Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., Porter, A. C., Tugwell, P., Moher, D., & Bouter, L. M. (2007) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 · Cited by 4,374
Sawyer, S. M., Azzopardi, P. S., Wickremarathne, D., & Patton, G. C. (2018) · The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health · doi:10.1016/s2352-4642(18)30022-1 · Cited by 3,666
Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health
Basner, M., Babisch, W., Davis, A., Brink, M., Clark, C., Janssen, S., & Stansfeld, S. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61613-x · Cited by 2,473
ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed
Whiting, P., Savović, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Caldwell, D. M., Reeves, B. C., Shea, B., Davies, P., Kleijnen, J., & Churchill, R. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005 · Cited by 2,272
Domains of cognition and their assessment
Harvey, P. D. (2019) · Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience · doi:10.31887/dcns.2019.21.3/pharvey · Cited by 695
Aircraft and road traffic noise and children's cognition and health: a cross-national study
Stansfeld, S., Berglund, B., Clark, C., Lopez-Barrio, I., Fischer, P., Öhrström, E., Haines, M., Head, J., Hygge, S., van Kamp, I., et al. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66660-3 · Cited by 676
Van Kempen, E., Casas, M., Pershagen, G., & Foraster, M. (2018) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph15020379 · Cited by 619
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.