# Acoustic Environment and Noise Exposure in Fitness Halls
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Subjective Evaluation of IS & G Hall Acoustics and its Relationship to Measured Values  
Figure 12 illustrates the relationship between the reverberation time at each IS & G hall with the average subjective rating of listening conditions. The figure shows a statistically strong positive correlation between reverberation time and listening conditions (\(p<0.01\)). The longer the reverberation time, the more unsatisfactory the hearing conditions, with a linear correlation coefficient (R\({}^{2}\) = 0.69) indicating the reverberation time as an important factor influencing the listening conditions. However, analyzing the relationship between L\({}_{\text{A,eq}}\) and listening conditions, no correlation was found. In a study conducted on a shopping mall [65], the employees' responses showed a correlation between the loudness in the mall and the reverberation time, as in this study, without any relationship with noise levels.  
In addition, \(T\) values correlated positively with the subjective rating of reverberant sounds in IS & G halls (\(p<0.01\)) with a high linear correlation coefficient of R\({}^{2}\) = 0.8186 (Figure 13). These results indicate that the measured \(T\) values, which are already large, are sufficiently large to be recognized by users even though 41.9% (n = 168) of users considered the level as fair. Similarly, subjects rated the background noise as high for IS & G halls with higher background noise levels, with a correlation coefficient R\({}^{2}\) = 0.6985 (\(p<0.01\)), as shown in Figure 14. Within Figure 14, it is noticed that the first two points of the background noise level were less than 45 dB(A) (41.4 and 43.2 dB(A)) in two gyms and the corresponding subjective rating of the background noise was also significantly lower than the rest of the gyms; this can be correlated to the Lombard effect, where an increase in background noise levels higher than 43.3 dB(A) is followed by a higher magnitude of vocal discomfort in comparison with values less than that change-point limit [66]. Other researchers have reported that factors such as  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Instructors (n = 137)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Participants (n = 264)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)**-Value**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-6}  & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** \\ \hline Listening conditions & 2.64 & \(\pm\)0.855 & 2.78 & \(\pm\)0.908 & 0.131 \\ Reverberant sound & 3.13 & \(\pm\)0.906 & 2.99 & \(\pm\)0.935 & 0.155 \\ Loud music & 2.05 & \(\pm\)0.869 & 3.75 & \(\pm\)0.937 & \(p\) **< 0.01** \\ Background noise level & 3.31 & \(\pm\)0.782 & 3.37 & \(\pm\)1.012 & 0.539 \\ Overall evaluation & 2.52 & \(\pm\)0.796 & 1.88 & \(\pm\)0.687 & \(p\) **< 0.01** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Results of acoustic comfort parameters of instructors’ and participants’ opinions.  
Figure 12: Relationship between reverberation time and subjective rating of listening conditions.  
personal reasons, satisfaction with working conditions, temperature, humidity, and lighting may also influence subjects' answers, and further investigation is necessary to understand all conditions [56; 67].