# The Impact of Noise on Learning in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis
## 3 Results
### Quantitative Synthesis
Similarly, memory (\(-0.127\), \(p\) = 0.461) and language processing (\(-0.152\), \(p\) = 0.318) showed negative trends, though they did not reach statistical significance. The lack of significance may stem from differences in study designs, noise exposure conditions, or measurement tools used across studies. Finally, high environmental noise (\(-0.045\), \(p\) = 0.820) and visuospatial skills (\(-0.064\), \(p\) = 0.856) were not significantly impacted, which suggests that not all cognitive functions are equally affected by noise exposure. It is possible that tasks relying on visual processing and spatial reasoning are less dependent on auditory conditions, making them more resistant to external distractions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline  & **Estimate** & **S.E** & **Z** & \(p\) \\ \hline Intercept & \(-0.352\) & \(0.152\) & \(-2.319\) & \(0.020\) \\ Noise (Environmental noise) & \(0.136\) & \(0.177\) & \(0.765\) & \(0.444\) \\ Noise (Classroom noise) & \(-0.161\) & \(0.206\) & \(-0.780\) & \(0.436\) \\ Noise (High environmental noise) & \(-0.045\) & \(0.197\) & \(-0.227\) & \(0.820\) \\ Noise (Traffic noise) & \(0.477\) & \(0.280\) & \(1.704\) & \(0.088\) \\ Age\_sta (Children) & \(-0.350\) & \(0.129\) & \(-2.714\) & \(0.007\) \\ Age\_sta (Younger) & \(0.029\) & \(0.167\) & \(0.173\) & \(0.863\) \\ Age\_sta (Other) & \(0.291\) & \(0.373\) & \(0.781\) & \(0.435\) \\ Age\_sta (Older) & \(-0.041\) & \(0.208\) & \(-0.198\) & \(0.843\) \\ Age\_sta (Teen) & \(-0.015\) & \(0.493\) & \(-0.031\) & \(0.975\) \\ Level (Secondary) & \(0.094\) & \(0.171\) & \(0.549\) & \(0.583\) \\ Function (Executive control) & \(-0.062\) & \(0.203\) & \(-0.307\) & \(0.759\) \\ Function (Processing speed) & \(0.011\) & \(0.190\) & \(0.058\) & \(0.954\) \\ Function (Memory) & \(-0.127\) & \(0.172\) & \(-0.738\) & \(0.461\) \\ Function (Mathematical skills) & \(0.217\) & \(0.120\) & \(1.805\) & \(0.071\) \\ Function (Attention) & \(-0.032\) & \(0.192\) & \(-0.168\) & \(0.866\) \\ Function (Language comprehension and processing) & \(-0.152\) & \(0.153\) & \(-0.998\) & \(0.318\) \\ Function (Visuospatial skills) & \(-0.064\) & \(0.352\) & \(-0.181\) & \(0.856\) \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note. Wald test. Estimate = estimated effect size; S = standard error; E = expected value; Z = Z-score; \(p\) = \(p\)-value.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Coefficients. The analysis of the residual heterogeneity estimates presented in Table 4 revealed significant residual heterogeneity among the studies, as indicated by a \(\tau^{2}\) value of 0.207 and an I\({}^{2}\) value of 96.943%. This high I\({}^{2}\) value suggests that approximately 97% of the variability in effect sizes is due to differences between the studies rather than sampling errors. The test of residual heterogeneity (Q) further supports this, with a value of 8320.079 (df = 134, \(p\) < 0.001), indicating that the heterogeneity is statistically significant. These results highlight the variation in the effects of noise on cognitive and academic performance across these studies. The heterogeneity could be attributed to several factors, including the large number of reported effect sizes; differences in participant ages, academic levels, and types of noise; and the variety of cognitive and academic processes assessed.