Conor Bathgate considers the evidence on the impact of acoustic environments.
29 May 2026
Login as a British Psychological Society member, at the top of this page, for access to author-narrated audio.
A group of three-year-olds sit in a semi-circle on the nursery school carpet. The practitioner begins to read. Around them, chairs scrape against the floor, a trolley rattles past the doorway, and a burst of laughter carries from the adjacent room. One child leans forward, eyes fixed on the book. Another turns toward the noise behind them. A third watches the practitioner's face, but misses the start of the sentence. A familiar early childhood learning environment: active, social, and full.
From an adult perspective, this is manageable. The activity continues, and the room appears engaged. Yet from the child's perspective, speech competes with background sound, attention is drawn by salient events, and access to language is uneven.
In developmental and educational psychology, there is increasing recognition of how environments shape learning. However, acoustic environments remain comparatively under-specified, particularly in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Sound is typically treated as a by-product of activity rather than as a factor that can structure how language is perceived, processed, and acted upon in real time.
Recent work on attention and distraction in early development provides a useful lens for understanding these dynamics. Professor Sam Wass and Dr Gemma Goldenberg (2023) highlight that young children's attentional systems are highly sensitive to competing sensory input, particularly in environments where multiple signals compete for processing. Within this framework, acoustic conditions are not peripheral. They directly shape which aspects of the environment are available for learning at any given moment.
Acoustic conditions and speech processing
Speech perception depends on the relationship between the target signal and competing noise. In environments with elevated background noise or multiple speakers, the acoustic signal is degraded by masking. This can occur at both an energetic level (overlap in frequency and amplitude) and an informational level (competition between meaningful speech streams) (Scott et al., 2004).
There is evidence that children often require more favourable signal-to-noise ratios than adults to achieve comparable levels of speech recognition, particularly in multi-talker conditions (Bradley & Sato, 2008). Under less favourable conditions, speech perception becomes less accurate and more variable.
Reduced clarity affects not only whether speech is accurately perceived, but also how it is processed. Listening under degraded conditions has been associated with increased listening effort, defined as the allocation of cognitive resources to understand auditory input (McGarrigle et al., 2014). This additional effort has implications for downstream processes, including comprehension and memory.
Classroom-based studies provide converging evidence that background noise, particularly competing speech, is associated with reductions in task performance in children, including tasks involving language and reading (Shield & Dockrell, 2003; Klatte et al., 2013). These effects are not uniform across tasks or individuals, but they indicate that acoustic environments can influence the efficiency of linguistic information processing.
At present, the majority of this evidence is derived from school-aged populations. However, the underlying mechanisms are likely to be relevant to younger children, whose auditory and cognitive systems are still developing.
Attention, cognitive load, and development
For young children, processing speech in noise occurs alongside the ongoing development of attention and executive function. Selective attention, the ability to prioritise relevant input while inhibiting distraction, is not fully established in early childhood.
Experimental research suggests that background noise can alter cognitive load and task performance, with effects varying depending on task demands, age, and individual differences (Massonnié et al., 2019; McGarrigle et al., 2014). In some cases, noise may disproportionately affect children with lower baseline attentional control (Helps et al., 2014).
In environments characterised by multiple concurrent speech streams, children must continuously allocate effort to distinguish relevant from irrelevant input. This has implications for how efficiently language is encoded and integrated. Over time, repeated exposure to suboptimal listening conditions may plausibly contribute to differences in how linguistic knowledge is accumulated, although direct longitudinal evidence in early childhood remains limited.
Emerging field-based evidence suggests that these dynamics may extend beyond cognition. Changes in learning environments, including movement to outdoor contexts, have been associated with differences in both noise exposure and children's physiological stress responses (Goldenberg et al., 2024).
These effects are unlikely to be evenly distributed. Children with additional needs, including those with identified language difficulties or attentional differences, may be more sensitive to degraded listening conditions (Dockrell & Shield, 2006). Similarly, children acquiring a second language may rely more heavily on clear acoustic input to support comprehension.
This raises the possibility that acoustic environments do not simply affect average performance, but may contribute to variability within groups.
Acoustic environments as a distributional issue
Acoustic environments are shaped by structural features of learning environments, including room size, materials, occupancy, and activity patterns. These features are not randomly distributed across settings.
Studies of school environments suggest that higher noise levels and poorer acoustic conditions are associated with factors such as larger group sizes and less acoustically treated spaces (Shield & Dockrell, 2008). Comparable large-scale data in early years settings is more limited, though similar structural constraints are likely to apply.
This has implications for how noise intersects with existing inequalities. Where acoustic conditions reduce speech intelligibility, the amount of usable linguistic input available to the child is also reduced, creating a pathway through which environmental differences may translate into differences in learning opportunity. Children from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are, on average, more likely to experience a range of environmental stressors, including higher levels of environmental noise exposure (World Health Organization, 2018), although this evidence is drawn primarily from broader environmental contexts rather than early years settings specifically. In educational contexts, if acoustic environments systematically reduce access to clear linguistic input, they may contribute to differences in learning opportunities.
Large-scale studies examining environmental noise, such as aircraft exposure, have reported associations with reduced reading comprehension and cognitive performance in children (Hygge et al., 2002). These findings cannot be simply generalised to early years settings, but they indicate that sustained exposure to suboptimal acoustic conditions may have measurable developmental correlates.
In this context, noise can be understood not as a singular causal factor, but as part of a broader ecological system. It interacts with other variables, including language exposure, attention, and stress, potentially amplifying existing differences in developmental trajectories.
Neurodiversity and differential access to acoustic environments
The effects of acoustic conditions are unlikely to be uniform across populations. In addition to age-related developmental differences, there is emerging evidence, particularly from studies of autism, that some children with neurodevelopmental differences may experience additional challenges in processing speech in complex auditory environments (Alcántara et al., 2004; O'Connor, 2012).
Experimental studies have reported reduced speech perception in noise among autistic children and young people, suggesting that more favourable signal-to-noise ratios may be required to achieve comparable intelligibility (Alcántara et al., 2004). Intervention work with school-aged autistic children also indicates that improving the auditory signal can reduce listening-related stress and support classroom communication, although this evidence is not equivalent to a direct estimate of speech-in-noise thresholds (Rance et al., 2017). These findings are typically interpreted in relation to differences in auditory processing and attentional allocation, although the evidence base is limited and largely derived from school-aged samples.
Related considerations apply to children with attentional differences. When attentional control varies across individuals, the signal's effective clarity may be reduced, even when the physical acoustic conditions are constant. In this sense, it is useful to distinguish between the environment's physical signal-to-noise ratio and the functional signal-to-noise ratio experienced by the child, which is shaped by perceptual and attentional factors.
Beyond diagnostic categories, there is increasing recognition of variability in sensory processing across the population. Parent-report evidence suggests that some children show broader sensory processing differences (Ahn et al., 2004), while meta-analytic evidence indicates elevated sensory modulation symptoms among autistic individuals (Ben-Sasson et al., 2009). While this work does not typically quantify speech-in-noise thresholds directly, it indicates that background sound may be more salient or disruptive for some individuals.
These patterns suggest that acoustic environments may differentially constrain access to linguistic input. When signal clarity is reduced, the additional demands placed on perceptual and cognitive systems are unlikely to be experienced equally. For some children, these demands may remain manageable. For others, they may impose more substantial limits on access to speech within the same setting. In this sense, acoustic conditions may contribute to variability in access to learning opportunities within the same environment. Therefore, a wider concern persists of inclusion within the classroom, underpinned by the acoustic quality of the learning environment.
From measurement to intervention: emerging directions
Recent work has begun to address a gap in the literature by examining acoustic environments in naturalistic settings, rather than under controlled laboratory conditions. This includes efforts to capture children's real-time exposure to sound and to evaluate the feasibility of modifying those environments. This is particularly relevant given the limited availability of naturalistic data on acoustic exposure in early childhood settings.
One example is ongoing research at the Institute for the Science of Early Years and Youth (ISEY) at the University of East London, funded by the Nuffield Foundation and conducted in partnership with the Early Years Alliance. This work uses wearable devices to quantify children's exposure to different types of sound throughout the nursery day, alongside measures of early language and attention. In this way, the study aims both to improve measurement of children's everyday acoustic environments and to test the feasibility of modifying those environments in practice.
A central aim of this research is to move beyond description towards intervention. Two broad approaches are being evaluated. The first focuses on environmental modification, including changes to materials, layout, and spatial organisation to reduce reverberation and competing noise. The second focuses on practitioner behaviour, including how adults position themselves, manage group interactions, and structure communication in acoustically complex environments.
This line of work reflects a broader shift towards treating acoustic environments as a modifiable feature of the learning environment, rather than as a fixed constraint.
Implications for psychological models
For psychology, these findings highlight a limitation in how developmental and language models are typically specified. Much of the experimental work assumes conditions in which speech is perceptually accessible and attention can be effectively directed, yet in everyday educational settings, these conditions are often not met. In practice, children often learn in acoustically complex environments.
If acoustic environments influence how language is perceived and processed, then they should be viewed as more than background variables to be controlled for. They are part of the functional context in which cognitive and developmental processes unfold.
The idea that the environment plays an active role in learning is well established, including within early childhood traditions associated with the Reggio Emilia and Montessori approaches. However, this has tended to focus on visual, spatial, and relational aspects of the environment. Sound has received comparatively less attention as a structuring feature.
Integrating acoustic environments into psychological models would require more explicit consideration of how sensory conditions shape access to information. This includes recognising that variability in environmental conditions may contribute to variability in observed outcomes.
Returning to the opening scene, the question is not whether the room is busy or even loud. It is how sound is organised, and what it affords or constrains. Without explicit consideration of acoustic conditions, there is a risk that early learning environments are mischaracterised, with important constraints on access to language remaining unrecognised.
Which aspects of speech are accessible, and which are masked; which children sustain attention, and which are more frequently disrupted; which interactions are supported, and which are attenuated by competing input.
For young children, learning is inseparable from the conditions under which information is encountered. Acoustic environments form part of those conditions – and children in the earliest stages of development are being asked to learn in environments that place substantial demands on attentional filtering, even as these systems are still developing. While the current evidence base in early childhood is still emerging, findings from related domains suggest that noise has the potential to influence language processing, attention, and regulation. Acoustic conditions are not simply background features of early learning environments, and it's time we made sound visible.Conor Bathgate, Institute for the Science of Early Years & Youth, University of East London
SOURCE: