Data for: Investigating the impact of background noise on collaborative decision-making using an individual-weighted voting model (2026)

The data included in this dataset are the estimated weights and summary statistics as described in the accompanying paper*. The raw confidence judgment data used in the study can be found in a separate dataset (doi.org/10.11583/DTU.25163816). See also the related paper** for additional analysis and dissemination of the data. For questions or inquiries, please contact Ingvi Örnólfsson ([e-mail], ORCID: 0000-0002-2222-0739)* Örnólfsson et al. (2026): Investigating the impact of background noise on collaborative decision-making using an individual-weighted voting model, doi.org/10.1186/s41235-026-00710-4** Örnólfsson et al. (2024): The Effect of Collaborative Triadic Conversations in Noise on Decision-Making in a General-Knowledge Task, doi.org/10.1177/23312165241305058---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This study investigated how background noise influenced group decision-making in triadic interactions. Ten triads of normal-hearing participants were recruited. Initially, each participant responded to a series of binary general knowledge questions and provided a confidence rating along with their response. Subsequently, the questions were discussed in groups of three in two distinct conditions; a high-intensity background noise condition (78 dB, referred to as the ‘noisy’ condition’) or a low-intensity condition (48dB, referred to as the ‘quiet’ condition). Finally, participants individually answered the same questions again.The study comprised 30 participants organized into groups of ten triads. All participants, aged between 20 and 35 years, were native Danish speakers with self-reported normal-hearing status. Except for two pairs, participants were unfamiliar with each other prior to the experiment. The experiment was conducted in Danish and took approximately 2.5 hours.The participants were seated in an equilateral triangle configuration, facing the other two group members, as illustrated in Figure 1b. The distance between participants was approximately 1.5 m. They wore eye-tracking glasses capturing point-of-view footage, eye-gaze data, and pupil dilation. Additionally, three microphones were utilized, including a pair of in-ear binaural microphones and a cheek-mounted microphone; however, data from these devices were not analyzed in this study.The group was surrounded by eight loudspeakers (Dynaudio BM6P), arranged in a ring of radius 2.4 m. Each loudspeaker played a separate Danish monologue (Ahrens & Lund, 2022), resulting in a spatially distributed multi-talker masker. The monologues lasted approximately 90 seconds each and were looped for the duration of the conversation. The loudspeakers were driven by a sonible d:24 amplifier. The masker was presented at sound pressure levels (SPLs) of either 48 dB or 78 dB, corresponding to the quiet and the noisy condition, respectively. The simultaneous presentation of multiple masking speech sources rendered them individually unintelligible in both conditions. To eliminate visual distractions, a circular black curtain entirely enclosed the participant area.The initial task for the participants involved responding individually to a series of binary general-knowledge questions categorized into three topics: Hollywood movies (identifying the oldest of two movies), Copenhagen landmarks (determining which of two locations is closest to the city center), and European countries (determining which of two countries has the most inhabitants). Each topic comprised two lists of 28 questions, one for each acoustic noise condition. Consequently, each list contained 28 trials, formulated by employing all unique binary questions from the eight items associated with that topic (e.g., eight Hollywood movies). Before the primary experiment, the group underwent a brief trial round on a different topic not used in the study. This allowed participants to familiarize themselves with the task, the technical interface, and with each other, thus overcoming any initial awkwardness in their conversations.Questions were presented on a touch-screen tablet, showing a visual illustration of the two options along with accompanying labels. The participants were instructed to select an option and provide a confidence level, expressed as a percentage between 50% and 100%, with 50% indicating no preference for either option, while 100% meant absolute certainty in the decision (Figure 1a). They were asked to interpret the scale as indicating their estimated probability of having answered the question correctly, i.e. a metacognitive judgment.After the initial set of 28 questions, a conversation round followed, during which the participants discussed their answers with the other group members. Collaborative problem-solving was encouraged, emphasizing the importance of improving the performance of all group members, not just oneself. Each participant was given a sheet displaying the eight items from the preceding question round during the conversation (see Figure 1b). Once a 10-minute time limit was reached or the conversation concluded naturally, participants individually answered the same 28 questions again (see Figure 1c). This process was repeated six times, once for each of the three topics and in each of the two noise conditions. The order of topics and conditions was randomized between groups, ensuring that the same topic did not appear consecutively. A brief break was incorporated after the third question round.

本数据集收录的内容为随附论文*中所述的估计权重与汇总统计量。本研究使用的原始置信判断数据可在独立数据集（doi.org/10.11583/DTU.25163816）中获取。如需获取该数据的额外分析与传播内容，请参阅相关论文**。如有疑问或咨询，请联系Ingvi Örnólfsson（邮箱：[e-mail]，ORCID：0000-0002-2222-0739）
* Örnólfsson等人（2026）：《采用个体加权投票模型探究背景噪声对协同决策的影响》，doi.org/10.1186/s41235-026-00710-4
** Örnólfsson等人（2024）：《噪声环境下三人协同对话对常识任务决策的影响》，doi.org/10.1177/23312165241305058

本研究旨在探究背景噪声对三人互动场景下群体决策的影响。本研究共招募10组三人小组，参与者均为听力正常人群。实验初始阶段，每名参与者需完成一系列二选一常识问答，并在作答的同时给出置信评分。随后，参与者以三人小组为单位，在两种不同的实验条件下讨论上述问题：高强度背景噪声条件（78分贝，下称“噪声条件”）与低强度背景噪声条件（48分贝，下称“安静条件”）。实验最后阶段，参与者需再次独立完成全部相同问答题目。
本研究共招募30名参与者，分为10组三人小组。所有参与者年龄介于20至35岁之间，均为丹麦母语使用者，且自我报告听力正常。除两组参与者中存在互相熟识的情况外，其余所有参与者在实验开始前均互不相识。本实验以丹麦语进行，总耗时约2.5小时。

参与者以等边三角形就座，面朝另外两名同组成员，如图1b所示。参与者之间的距离约为1.5米。所有参与者佩戴眼动追踪眼镜（eye-tracking glasses），可采集第一视角影像、眼动数据与瞳孔扩张数据。此外，实验共使用3个麦克风，包括一对入耳式双耳麦克风与一个脸颊式麦克风，但本研究未对这些设备采集的数据进行分析。
实验场地周围布置了8台扬声器（Dynaudio BM6P），以半径2.4米的环形排列。每台扬声器分别播放一段丹麦语独白（Ahrens与Lund，2022），形成空间分布的多说话人掩蔽声（multi-talker masker）。每段独白时长约90秒，在对话过程中循环播放。扬声器由sonible d:24功率放大器驱动。掩蔽声的声压级（sound pressure levels，SPL）分别设置为48分贝与78分贝，对应安静条件与噪声条件。两种条件下均同时播放多个掩蔽语音源，使得单个掩蔽语音无法被识别。为消除视觉干扰，参与者所在区域被圆形黑色幕布完全环绕。

实验初始任务为，参与者独立完成一系列分类为三大主题的二选一常识问答：好莱坞电影（判断两部电影中上映时间更早的一部）、哥本哈根地标（判断两处地点中距离城市中心更近的一处）与欧洲国家（判断两个国家中人口更多的一个）。每个主题对应两份各含28道题的问卷，分别对应两种声学噪声条件。每份问卷包含28道测试题，由对应主题的8个条目生成所有唯一的二选一问题（例如8部好莱坞电影可生成所有两两组合的二选一问题）。正式实验开始前，各组会先进行一轮简短的练习任务，使用的主题不用于正式实验，以便参与者熟悉实验任务、技术界面并互相熟悉，缓解对话初期的尴尬氛围。
题目通过触控平板展示，屏幕上会呈现两个选项的可视化图示与对应标签。参与者需选择其中一个选项，并给出置信水平，以50%至100%的百分比表示：50%代表对两个选项无偏好，100%代表对自身决策完全确定（如图1a所示）。实验要求参与者将该量表理解为自身答对该题的估计概率，即元认知判断（metacognitive judgment）。

完成初始的28道题目后，进入一轮讨论环节，参与者可与同组成员讨论各自的答案。实验鼓励协作式问题解决，强调提升全体组员的作答表现而非仅自身表现。讨论期间，每名参与者会获得一张印有前一轮答题所用的8个主题条目的纸张（如图1b所示）。当10分钟的讨论时限结束或对话自然结束后，参与者需再次独立完成全部28道题目（如图1c所示）。上述流程共重复6次，覆盖三大主题与两种噪声条件各一次。各组的主题与条件顺序均经过随机化处理，确保同一主题不会连续出现。第三轮答题结束后，会安排一段简短休息。