Speech is the noise that bothers office workers most, and sensitivity seems to amplify it
In office settings, speech stands out as the most disruptive kind of noise [2]. That matters because speech is not a steady hum you can tune out; it carries meaning, so the brain keeps processing it even when you are trying to work. The office study links how much this speech disrupts a person to their individual noise sensitivity level [2], which is the pattern the question asks about: two people at the same desk, hearing the same conversation, may not be equally affected.
It is worth being precise about what that study can support. It identifies speech as the leading disruptor and ties the disruption to noise sensitivity, but it does not report a head-to-head count of how much worse high-sensitivity people performed or felt. So the reasonable reading is that sensitivity is a real modifier of the office speech experience, not that a specific penalty has been quantified.
The same sensitivity pattern appears with other sounds, which strengthens the case
Evidence from outside the office points the same direction. In a survey of people judging floor impact noise in their dwellings, researchers expected annoyance to vary strongly with noise sensitivity, with the high-sensitivity group more likely to judge a sound annoying and the low-sensitivity group less likely to do so [1]. That is a different sound in a different setting, but it supports the general idea that sensitivity shifts where the threshold for annoyance sits.
Personality may sit underneath this. Among industrial workers, people with a melancholic temperament showed the highest noise sensitivity and annoyance, while phlegmatic individuals showed the lowest [3]. Temperament explained more of the variation in hyperacusis — an unusually strong reaction to everyday sound — than in sensitivity or annoyance themselves [3]. This suggests sensitivity is partly a stable trait rather than a simple reaction to one bad acoustic day, though the study population was industrial workers, not office staff.
The room itself changes how hard listening is, independent of who is listening
Acoustics are not a neutral backdrop. In simulated open-plan offices, listening effort was sensitive to changes in reverberation time — roughly, how long sound lingers and smears after it is made [4]. Low background noise and stable acoustic conditions helped; more reverberant conditions made the listening task more demanding [4].
This is where the two threads meet, at least in principle. If a room raises listening effort for everyone [4], and sensitivity raises annoyance for some people [1][2], then a highly sensitive person in a reverberant, speech-filled office is plausibly hit by both effects at once. That combination is a reasonable inference from the separate findings, not something a single study here tested.
Sound masking — adding a controlled background sound to blur speech — is one intervention examined for offices, and background meeting speech reduced word recognition compared with background noise alone [5]. Notably, the masking conditions tested did not restore recognition [5], so masking should not be assumed to solve the speech problem outright.
What is established, and what is still an open question
The honest summary is a chain of consistent but separate results. Speech is the most disruptive office noise and its impact varies with noise sensitivity [2]; high sensitivity predicts more annoyance from at least one other sound type [1]; temperament is associated with sensitivity and annoyance [3]; and room acoustics independently affect listening effort [4] and speech recognition [5]. Each link is supported, but the full chain — high-sensitivity people measured against low-sensitivity people under real office speech and acoustic conditions — is not directly tested in these studies.
For a reader deciding what to do with this, the practical implication is modest but useful: individual differences in sensitivity are worth taking seriously when judging whether an office is "too noisy," and acoustic fixes such as reducing reverberation [4] address a burden that exists regardless of sensitivity. Whether they close the gap between sensitive and insensitive workers is the question the current evidence leaves open.
Sources used in this answer
The relationship between noise sensitivity and the perception of floor impact noise
In a survey on floor impact noise in dwellings, high noise sensitivity was expected to make listeners more likely to judge sounds annoying, and low sensitivity less likely.
What about noise? Perception of noise at the workplace–office study
In an office setting, speech was regarded as the most disruptive noise, and its disruptive effect depended on the individual's noise sensitivity level.
Temperament and its Impact on Noise Sensitivity, Hyperacusis and Noise Annoyance
Among industrial workers, melancholic temperament was associated with the highest noise sensitivity and annoyance and phlegmatic temperament with the lowest, with temperament affecting hyperacusis more strongly than sensitivity or annoyance.
Listening Effort in Complex Audiovisual Scenes Under Varying Simulated Room Acoustic Conditions
In simulated open-plan offices, listening effort was sensitive to changes in reverberation time, with low background noise and stable acoustics being favorable.
Effects of Background Meeting Speech and Non-Directional Sound Masking on Word Recognition and Subjective Evaluation of the Acoustic Environment
Background meeting speech reduced word recognition compared with background noise alone, and the tested sound-masking conditions did not reverse that reduction.