Effects of listening to music, and of using a handheld and handsfree telephone on cycling behaviour

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2011.07.001Get rights and content

Abstract

The effects of listening to music on cycling behaviour were evaluated. Twenty-five participants completed a track on a bicycle while listening to music with two standard earbuds, with one earbud, and with two in-earbuds. Conditions with high tempo music and loud volume were also included in the experiment, as were two mobile phone conditions, one in which participants operated the phone hand held and one handsfree condition.

Cycle speed was not affected by listening to music, but was reduced in the telephone conditions. In general the response to auditory signals worsened when participants listened to music, in particular when listening with in-earbuds loud auditory stop signals were missed in 68% of the cases. However, when listening with only one standard earbud performance was not affected. In the conditions when participants listened to high volume and to high tempo music, the auditory stop signal was also heard in significantly fewer cases. Completing a task on the mobile phone, using both handheld and handsfree sets, resulted in increased response time to an auditory stop signal and also reduced overall auditory perception. Furthermore, handsfree operation only had minor advantages opposed to hand held operation, with only response time to an auditory stop signal resulting in faster performance. This is likely to be related to the fact that both hands could be used for braking.

It is concluded that listening to music worsens auditory perception, in particular if in-earbuds are used. Furthermore, both handheld and handsfree operation of mobile phones has a negative effect on perception, potentially forming a threat to cyclist traffic safety.

Highlights

► Listening to music while cycling deteriorates auditory perception, a safety risk. ► Negative effects are very large when in-earbuds are used. ► Negative effects of high volume and fast tempo on auditory perception were found. ► No negative effects were found when listening to music using only one earbud. ► Only limited safety advantage of handsfree to handheld mobile phone use while cycling.

Introduction

The effects of listening to music on task performance in general are mixed. There are two main hypotheses, which predict opposite effects. These are the Mood-arousal hypothesis and the Distraction hypothesis (see e.g. Shek & Schubert, 2009). The Mood-arousal hypothesis (Smith and Curnow, 1966, Thompson et al., 2001) predicts that arousing music will increase activity. For example, customers spend less time in a supermarket if loud (Smith & Curnow, 1966) or high tempo (Hargreaves & North, 1997) music is played, and the productivity of workers increases when they are aroused (Shek & Schubert, 2009). On the other hand, the Distraction hypothesis (Furnham & Strbac, 2002) states that music draws attention away from work-related tasks and leads to worse task performance. This is particularly true for complex work (Oldham, Cummings, Mischel, Schmidtke, & Zhou, 1995). The effect of the Distraction hypothesis is in accord with the common observation that drivers will reduce music volume if a more demanding task, such as merging into heavy traffic, has to be performed (see also North & Hargreaves, 1999). North and Hargreaves (1999) also expect that non-arousing, undemanding music should be liked more than arousing (demanding) music when heard while performing a complex task, as complex music will increase the competition for the limited resources available (Kahneman, 1973) to process these streams of information. The most negative effects of music are expected to occur when performing complex tasks, in particular if these tasks and music draw upon the same resources. The main difference between the Mood-arousal and Distraction hypotheses is the stress that is put on the complexity of the tasks, and the state of the operator. When in a non-optimal state while performing a relatively simple task, music can improve performance. When already loaded by a complex task, music can have the opposite effect and be distracting and deteriorate performance.

The task at hand is thus very important in relation to these two hypotheses. Car driving covers the whole range from a relatively simple to a complex task, as determined by the demands of the environment and the capabilities of the individual driver. For example, it can be expected that driving on a quiet motorway is far less demanding than navigating through an unfamiliar foreign city. Therefore, the effects of an additional task, such as listening to music, can be expected to have different effects in different conditions. For example, while generally the use of a mobile phone has a negative effect on driving performance (Caird, Willness, Steel, & Scialfa, 2008), making a phone call was found to coincide with improved lane control when driving on a quiet motorway (Brookhuis, de Vries, & de Waard, 1991). The authors interpreted this effect as being similar to the mood-arousing hypothesis due to an alerting effect that calling may have in a low stimulus environment.

Several studies have been published on the effects of listening to music while driving a motor vehicle (e.g., Bellinger et al., 2009, Brodsky, 2002, Dalton et al., 2007, Dibben and Williamson, 2007, Nelson and Nilsson, 1990 Pecher, Lemercier, & Cellier, 2009) but only a few studies included the effects of music on cycling behaviour (e.g., de Waard, Schepers, Ormel, & Brookhuis, 2010). It may be relevant to know what these effects are, as due to the easy availability and popularity of mp3 players, an increasing number of cyclists are listening to music while cycling. In some countries (e.g. Germany and New Zealand) it is illegal to cycle while listening to music, whereas in other countries (e.g. The Netherlands) it is not forbidden. De Waard et al. (2010) observed that 7.7% of the cyclists in the Dutch city of Groningen were listening to an mp3 player or iPod while Goldenbeld, Houtenbos, and Ehlers (2010) reported on the basis of results of an internet survey amongst 2500 cyclists that 15% of cyclists 18–34 years of age listen to music during (almost) every ride they make. Younger cyclists (ages 12–17) reported listening to music while cycling more frequently, with 40% of the young cyclists almost always listening to music as they rode. The percentage of cyclists who sometimes listen to music were found to be 76% for the youngest age group, and 54% for the 18–34 year old cyclists. Older cyclists also sometimes reported listening to music while cycling. With 23% of the 35–50 year old group and 14% of the 50+ year old group reporting that they sometimes rode their cycle while listening to music (Goldenbeld et al., 2010). For cycling, as with driving, the task varies from simple to complex and from low to high mental demand. Crossing a busy junction is quite different from riding on a long straight cycle path along a country road (as can be found in flat countries like the Netherlands). In their experimental study, de Waard et al. (2010) found no effect on cycle speed of listening to an mp3 player with only self-reported perception of risk increasing. But in this study participants could choose their own preferred music and the volume that it was played, and no measure of response time was taken, nor was any response to auditory stimuli assessed.

From sports psychology, we know that high volume music appears to increase arousal (Bishop et al., 2009, Bishop et al., 2007). In cycling, this could lead to the idea that one cycles faster when listening to loud music. Loud music may also decrease reaction time to central stimuli, but at the same time increases response time to peripheral stimuli (Beh & Hirst, 1999). Also, loud music can affect auditory perception very directly in a negative way, and auditory information is particularly important for cyclists, for example so that they can hear motor vehicles approaching from behind.

Apart from volume, the tempo of music may have an effect on arousal and performance. Participants moved faster on a treadmill exercise when high tempo music was played (Edworthy & Waring, 2006), and Bishop et al. (2009) found that listening to high tempo music reduced reaction times in a choice reaction task. Tempo is also a strong determinant of the affective response to music (Bishop et al., 2009). In that, high tempo music is more frequently highly appreciated than low tempo music. For car driving, Brodsky (2002) found that during a high music tempo condition drivers not only perceived that they were travelling at a faster driving speed but also their actual driving speed was higher than in a control condition. They also found an increase in traffic violations in the high tempo condition.

A factor that has not received much attention yet but that may be very relevant in traffic, and in particular for cycling, is the way cyclists listen to music. Unlike car drivers, who can have build-in stereo systems, cyclists tend to rely on portable music players and headphones. The earbuds on headphones come in different formats, from relatively open to in-earbuds that largely close the ears off to external sound. Cyclists wearing headphones that cover the whole ear can also be spotted. In the internet survey by Goldenbeld et al. (2010), about 5% of the music-listening cyclists reported using a loudspeaker, 23% used only one earbud, 55% uses two earbuds or over-ear headphones and the rest reported using a different options at different times. No information on the use of in-earbuds was available.

Another activity that is often combined with driving, and also with cycling, is the use of mobile phones. The effect of operating a mobile phone while cycling was the subject of a recent study by de Waard et al. (2010) in which the more demanding the mobile phone task that had to be performed, the larger the reduction in cycle speed that was found. More importantly, visual detection of stimuli in the periphery deteriorated while operating a handheld phone. Hyman, Boss, Wise, McKenzie, and Caggiano (2010) also found that pedestrians who were talking on a mobile phone, more frequently missed a very remarkable peripheral stimulus, a clown on a unicycle. However, those listening to music players did not miss the clown more frequently than people who were not listening to music. Whether effects for handheld and handsfree telephone operation are different for cyclists is not known. In car driving, the differences are limited (Caird et al., 2008), particularly if the task is cognitively demanding. Therefore, when operating a handsfree phone while cycling a reduction in peripheral detection performance is expected (Amado & Ulupınar, 2005), as well as an increase in reaction time (Bellinger et al., 2009). It is possible that vehicle control is less affected when cyclists operate a handsfree telephone, as they can steer with two hands on the handlebar, however this effect has not been found in car drivers. In terms of legislation, in the Netherlands both handheld and handsfree telephoning while cycling are allowed, whereas in Germany handheld telephoning while cycling is not allowed but operating a handsfree phone is. The legislation in Germany is therefore similar as for car drivers in that country. However, as for car drivers differences between handheld and handsfree telephoning are limited, the question is whether these effects, or better the lack of these effects, are similar for cyclists. This is considered to be important as in an observation study in the Netherlands it was found that almost 3% of cyclists manually operate their mobile phone while cycling.

In the present study, the effects of listening to music and of using a mobile phone while cycling on an isolated cycle path were studied. The type of earbud, the number of earbuds used, and the tempo and volume of music were varied. As an active control a hand-held telephone condition was included, and a handsfree condition was added. It is expected that listening to music overall will not have any effect on performance, i.e. no change in speed, peripheral detection, or response time is expected. However, high music tempo and volume are expected to increase cycle speed and reduce auditory perception. High tempo music is expected to reduce reaction time, while high volume music is expected to negatively affect peripheral visual detection. Both handheld and handsfree telephoning are expected to reduce cycle speed, and to deteriorate detection of stimuli in the periphery. No specific effects of type of earbud are expected.

Section snippets

Participants

Participants were recruited via advertisements and the word of mouth. They were asked to participate with their own bicycle. Taking part in the experiment took around 45–60 min. Before the experiment started all participants provided informed consent and after participation they received €10 as compensation. Eleven men and 14 women completed the experiment and their ages ranged from 16 to 26 years.

Location and conditions

The experiment was carried out on a quiet, somewhat remote, public cycle path (the same location as

Participants

Average age of the participants was 22 years (SD 2.65). All used their mobile phone while cycling; 54% reported doing so several times a week and 17% did so less than once a month. A relatively large proportion, 36%, indicated never to listen to music while cycling, 24% indicated that they listen to music for a maximum of four times per month, and 30% reported that they do so a few times a week to almost always. The majority of them usually listened to music while cycling with two earbuds, two

Discussion and conclusions

In Section 1, it was argued that the environment in which people listen to music matters for the effect it has on performance. The ethical committee that approved the present study demanded a safe environment, i.e. no other traffic present, and this should be kept in mind when generalising results. The experimental conditions were “easy” compared with cycling through heavy urban traffic. Thus, it was expected that effects of music would be more in line with the Mood-arousal hypothesis than with

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Anneloes Sorgdrager, Marit Wunderink, Imke Wormeck, and Hester Wolters for helping with the field work. Thanks also to Ben Lewis-Evans for thoroughly checking the manuscript.

References (28)

  • B.H. Dalton et al.

    Effects of sound types and volumes on simulated driving, vigilance tasks and heart rate

    Occupational Ergonomics

    (2007)
  • D. de Waard et al.

    Mobile phone use while cycling: Incidence and effects on behaviour and safety

    Ergonomics

    (2010)
  • N. Dibben et al.

    An exploratory survey of in-vehicle music listening

    Psychology of Music

    (2007)
  • J. Edworthy et al.

    The effects of music tempo and loudness level on treadmill exercise

    Ergonomics

    (2006)
  • Cited by (52)

    • Food-delivery behavior under crowd sourcing mobility services

      2022, Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition)
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text