Sources checked 27 October 2026. The four rooms, the sound levels and the recommendations below are illustrative examples drawn from lab studies, not medical advice.
Maya has one hour to finish a logo. She tries four soundtracks in that hour. First the open office: two colleagues debating lunch, a phone call, a laugh across the room. Her cursor hovers. She rereads the brief three times. Then she closes the door and gets silence. It is calm, but oddly flat, and her mind wanders to the email she hasn't answered. She switches on white noise and the voices outside blur into a soft hiss. Finally she plays an instrumental playlist, and for the first time the hour starts to move.
Was it the music? Was it just that she had finally warmed up? And would the same playlist work for you?
The research on sound and concentration gives a more useful answer than "music helps" or "silence is best". The sound that works is usually the one that interferes least with the specific thing you are doing, and that depends on the task and on you.
Why can't you tune out a conversation?
Your ears have no lids. Even when you decide to ignore a sound, your brain keeps processing it, and some sounds are much harder to ignore than others.
Psychologists call this the irrelevant sound effect (it began as the "irrelevant speech effect"). In a classic lab set-up, people memorise a short list of items in order while sound plays that they are told to ignore. Background speech reliably lowers their scores, even in a language they don't understand. A review by Banbury, Macken, Tremblay and Jones described how this kind of sound slips past selective attention, and noted that the amount of disruption depends on both the properties of the sound and the task. Sound that changes from moment to moment, like speech with its stream of distinct syllables, tends to disrupt more than a steady hum. [1]
Intelligibility matters too. A 2020 systematic review of 14 laboratory studies found that performance on memory-heavy tasks begins to drop once nearby speech becomes even partly intelligible, and reaches its largest drop when speech is fairly easy to follow. [2] That is why the half-heard conversation two desks away can be harder to work next to than a loud, steady air conditioner.
Illustrative summary of the studies cited in this article, not measured scores. Sound shapes are schematic.
Is silence the gold standard?
For memory and reading, quiet is a strong default. A large meta-analysis of 65 studies on reading found that background noise, speech and music all produced small but reliable drops in reading performance compared with quiet. Intelligible speech and music with lyrics caused the biggest distraction. [3]
But "small" matters here. The effects in these studies are averages over many people, and they are modest. Silence is not magic, and many people find total quiet uncomfortable or find that their own thoughts get louder in it. That flatness Maya felt is common, and it is a real experience even if it doesn't show up as a big effect in a reading test.
What does white noise actually do?
White noise and its softer cousins (pink or brown noise, fan sounds, rain) don't add information. They mostly mask other sounds: a steady hiss makes nearby speech less intelligible, so it pulls on attention less. This is the same logic open-plan offices use when they add sound masking to make conversations harder to follow. [2]
Noise is not free, though. The reading meta-analysis also found reliable distraction from noise itself, just less than from speech. [3] So white noise is best thought of as a tool for drowning out something worse, not as a focus booster in its own right.
Does music help or hurt?
It depends heavily on the music and the task.
Lyrics compete with words. In a randomised experiment with 102 young adults, Shih, Huang and Chiang found that background music with lyrics significantly lowered scores on an attention test, while the same kind of music without lyrics did not have a significant effect. [4] Reading and writing use the same language systems that lyrics demand.
Overall, the average effect is close to zero. A meta-analysis by Kämpfe, Sedlmeier and Renkewitz pooled studies of background music in adults and found an overall null effect, with reading disturbed and small costs for memory, but positive effects on emotional reactions and on sports performance. [5]
Personality may shift the balance. In a small study (10 introverts and 10 extraverts), Furnham and Bradley found that pop music in the background hurt introverts more than extraverts on a delayed memory test and on reading comprehension. [6] The sample is tiny, so treat it as a hint, not a rule.
Music's benefits often come from mood and arousal: it can make a boring task feel less boring, which helps you start and keep going. The cost comes from competition: if the music asks for the same mental resources as your work, it takes some of them.
Direction of the published result only (Mehta, Zhu & Cheema, 2012). Reference loudness levels are approximate.
Can a little noise boost creativity?
This is the twist that surprises most people. In five experiments, Mehta, Zhu and Cheema found that a moderate level of ambient noise (about 70 dB, roughly a busy café) improved performance on creative tasks compared with a quieter 50 dB, while loud noise at 85 dB hurt it. [7] Their explanation: moderate noise makes processing slightly harder, which nudges people toward more abstract thinking, and abstract thinking helps creative idea generation.
Two caveats. These were short lab tasks measuring idea generation, not hours of detailed work. And moderate noise helping brainstorming does not mean it helps proofreading. For detail work and memory, the irrelevant sound research points the other way. [1][3]
So the best soundtrack can change within one project: a café hum while sketching ideas, quiet or masking noise while writing the copy.
Why "personalised" is the 2026 trend
The Global Wellness Summit's 2026 trends report named "The Rise of Neurowellness" one of its ten trends, describing regulation of the nervous system as a new frontier that draws on neuroscience, behavioural science, somatic practices, sensory design and consumer neurotechnology. [8] Designing the sound around you is one of the simplest, cheapest forms of that sensory design.
The research supports the personal part. There is no single focus soundtrack. Averages hide large individual differences, and the same person may need different sounds for different tasks.
A thinking aid built from the studies in this article, not medical or personal advice.
Myths worth dropping
Each card summarises a cited study or review; effects are averages and vary by person.
Your soundscape, designed
Think of sound as part of your workspace, like light or a chair. Three steps cover most situations:
Name the task. Reading, writing, coding or learning new material: protect your language systems. Choose quiet, steady masking noise or music without lyrics. Brainstorming or sketching: a moderate background hum may help. Routine or repetitive work: music you like can lift your mood and keep you going.
Remove the worst sound first. Intelligible speech is the usual culprit. Headphones, a different room, or masking noise often help more than any playlist.
Run a two-sound test. Try two options for a few days each on the same kind of task, and notice which one you stop noticing. The best soundtrack is usually the one you forget is playing.
Which sound in your day is quietly taking a share of your attention?
Sources
[1] Banbury, S. P., Macken, W. J., Tremblay, S., & Jones, D. M. (2001). Auditory distraction and short-term memory: Phenomena and practical implications. Human Factors, 43(1), 12–29. A narrative review, mostly of lab studies of serial recall; real offices are messier than the lab.
[2] Haapakangas, A., Hongisto, V., & Liebl, A. (2020). The relation between the intelligibility of irrelevant speech and cognitive performance: A revised model based on laboratory studies. Indoor Air, 30(6), 1130–1146. 14 lab studies with 34 tests; strongest for verbal short-term memory, limited evidence for complex tasks.
[3] Vasilev, M. R., Kirkby, J. A., & Angele, B. (2018). Auditory distraction during reading: A Bayesian meta-analysis of a continuing controversy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(5), 567–597. 65 studies of reading; effects are small on average.
[4] Shih, Y.-N., Huang, R.-H., & Chiang, H.-Y. (2012). Background music: Effects on attention performance. Work, 42(4), 573–578. 102 participants aged 20–24 in Taiwan, one attention test in a single session.
[5] Kämpfe, J., Sedlmeier, P., & Renkewitz, F. (2011). The impact of background music on adult listeners: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Music, 39(4), 424–448. Pools very different music and tasks, so an overall null can hide opposite effects.
[6] Furnham, A., & Bradley, A. (1997). Music while you work: The differential distraction of background music on the cognitive test performance of introverts and extraverts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11(5), 445–455. Only 20 participants and pop music; later studies are mixed.
[7] Mehta, R., Zhu, R., & Cheema, A. (2012). Is noise always bad? Exploring the effects of ambient noise on creative cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 784–799. Five experiments, mostly with students and short creativity tasks; not a test of long, detailed work.
[8] Global Wellness Summit (2026). The Future of Wellness: 2026 Trends, "The Rise of Neurowellness" (Heidi Moon). An industry trends forecast, not a scientific study.
Watch the episode
One email when we publish. Research, product decisions, and what teams report back.
