声学学报
聲學學報
성학학보
ACTA ACUSTICA
2010年
2期
179-184
,共6页
通过对北京4个开放式办公室的声环境特性测试以及一系列现场问卷调查,研究了对汉语背景下开放式办公室声环境评价的特点及其与客观声学参数之间的关系.分析发现,汉语背景下人们对声环境的关注程度仅次于光线,并对语言私密性有一定的要求;声环境评价与办公室的工作性质有关,但均在"不好不坏"和"糟糕"之间;声环境评价与背景噪声L_(Aeq)和L_(10)显著相关,采用混响时间作为单一指标来评价声环境的方法存在明显不足;当减少语言传输指数STI时,可以同时提高语言私密度和改善声环境;声环境认知、声响大小的敏感度、情绪和疲劳等主观因素对声环境评价具有显著性影响,而工作注意力集中程度、每天工作时间、年龄、收入、职位等则影响不显著.
通過對北京4箇開放式辦公室的聲環境特性測試以及一繫列現場問捲調查,研究瞭對漢語揹景下開放式辦公室聲環境評價的特點及其與客觀聲學參數之間的關繫.分析髮現,漢語揹景下人們對聲環境的關註程度僅次于光線,併對語言私密性有一定的要求;聲環境評價與辦公室的工作性質有關,但均在"不好不壞"和"糟糕"之間;聲環境評價與揹景譟聲L_(Aeq)和L_(10)顯著相關,採用混響時間作為單一指標來評價聲環境的方法存在明顯不足;噹減少語言傳輸指數STI時,可以同時提高語言私密度和改善聲環境;聲環境認知、聲響大小的敏感度、情緒和疲勞等主觀因素對聲環境評價具有顯著性影響,而工作註意力集中程度、每天工作時間、年齡、收入、職位等則影響不顯著.
통과대북경4개개방식판공실적성배경특성측시이급일계렬현장문권조사,연구료대한어배경하개방식판공실성배경평개적특점급기여객관성학삼수지간적관계.분석발현,한어배경하인문대성배경적관주정도부차우광선,병대어언사밀성유일정적요구;성배경평개여판공실적공작성질유관,단균재"불호불배"화"조고"지간;성배경평개여배경조성L_(Aeq)화L_(10)현저상관,채용혼향시간작위단일지표래평개성배경적방법존재명현불족;당감소어언전수지수STI시,가이동시제고어언사밀도화개선성배경;성배경인지、성향대소적민감도、정서화피로등주관인소대성배경평개구유현저성영향,이공작주의력집중정도、매천공작시간、년령、수입、직위등칙영향불현저.
To study the acoustic characteristics of open-plan offices under Chinese language environment and the relationships between subjective evaluation and objective indices, measurements were made in four open-plan offices in Beijing, along with a series of questionnaires surveys. The results show that, acoustic quality is the second important factor for such office environment, just after lighting, and there is a certain degree of requirement for speech privacy. Although subjective evaluation of the acoustic environment depends on the type of work, it is generally between "neither good nor bad" and "bad" . The subjective evaluation significantly correlates to LAeq and Lio, so that using reverberation time only is not appropriate to evaluate the acoustic environment. Reducing speech transmission index could considerably improve the speech privacy as well as the overall acoustic evaluation. Subjective factors including the recognition of acoustic environment, loudness sensitivity, and emotional feeling based on mood and tiredness, significantly affect the acoustic environment evaluation, whereas no significant influence has been found from the concentration level on work, working hours per day, age, income and position.