## 3 Results and Discussion
### Acoustic Variables Associated with Maximum or Minimum Values of Sound Energy  
An analysis is presented in this section of the explanatory capacity of acoustic variables that basically measure the maximum and minimum values of the sound energy over the whole audible spectrum and the measurement time, with certain spectral adaptations (A, C) to the response of the human ear, certain temporal considerations with regard to the signal treatment (F, S, I), and also taking into account the signal without temporal treatment (peak). Table 4 shows the correlation coefficients and the levels of significance obtained for the linear relations between the subjective variables and the acoustic variables related to the maximum values of the sound energy. The first observation that can be made from the group of indicators related to the maximum values of the sound energy, compared to those analysed in the previous section, is that there is a significant loss in their capacity to explain the appearance and intensity of the noise effects analysed. In particular, it is remarkable that the maximum levels have little or no capacity to explain effects such as annoyance in the ears (c) and interruption of a phone conversation (f). This is even unexpected given that effects such as startle (b) or annoyance in the ears (c) could be expected to be explained by the maximum values. Hence, at least for the sound level ranges measured here (see Table 2), the maximum levels are not good estimators of the analysed noise effects. Despite this, it may be of interest to highlight that an increase in the value of the correlation coefficient is observed for all noise effects when moving from an S weighting to F and I weightings for medium and high frequencies (A weighting). This does not occur for the C-weighted sound indicator columns. This effect may be related to the stronger influence of low frequencies on the value of the indicator when the C weighting is used, and to the fact that a smaller influence from the time weighting is to be expected for longer wavelengths of the sound. Once the findings related to the maximum values have been analysed, Table 5 shows the correlation coefficients and the levels of significance obtained for the linear relations \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & \(L_{\text{A5 max}}\) & \(L_{\text{A5 max}}\) & \(L_{\text{A1 max}}\) & \(L_{\text{C5 max}}\) & \(L_{\text{C7 max}}\) & \(L_{\text{C1 max}}\) & \(L_{\text{Cpeak}}\) \\ \hline (a) & 0.53 ** & 0.57 ** & 0.58 *** & 0.46 * & 0.43 * & 0.45 * & 0.53 ** \\ (b) & 0.34 n.s. & 0.41 * & 0.46 * & 0.37 * & 0.39 * & 0.46 * & 0.50 ** \\ (c) & 0.19 n.s. & 0.26 n.s. & 0.30 n.s. & 0.32 n.s. & 0.31 n.s. & 0.35 n.s. & 0.36 n.s. \\ (d) & 0.42 * & 0.44 * & 0.45 * & 0.36 n.s. & 0.36 n.s. & 0.34 n.s. & 0.22 n.s. \\ (e) & 0.41 * & 0.50 ** & 0.53 ** & 0.39 * & 0.40 * & 0.39 * & 0.30 n.s. \\ (f) & 0.27 n.s. & 0.28 n.s. & 0.31 n.s. & 0.31 n.s. & 0.30 n.s. & 0.27 n.s. & 0.14 n.s. \\ (g) & 0.35 n.s. & 0.42 * & 0.45 * & 0.37 * & 0.38 * & 0.36 n.s. & 0.26 n.s. \\ (h) & 0.37 * & 0.47 * & 0.51 ** & 0.49 ** & 0.49 ** & 0.48 ** & 0.46 * \\ (i) & 0.61 *** & 0.67 *** & 0.70 *** & 0.53 ** & 0.55 ** & 0.55 ** & 0.50 ** \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* n.s Non-significant correlation (\(p>0.05\)).
* Significant at \(p\leq 0.05\). *
* Significant at \(p\leq 0.01\). **
* Significant at \(p\leq 0.001\).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Correlation coefficients between subjective variables and acoustic variables related to the maximum values of the sound energy. between the subjective variables and the acoustic variables related to the minimum values of the sound energy. From a first approximation, it can be seen that the indicators of the minimum sound levels analysed here explain a greater proportion of the variability in the noise effects than the indicators of maximum energy.