What the direct comparison actually measured
The most direct evidence comes from a study that placed employees in activity-based workplaces and traditional cell offices, measured the noise in each setting, and tested cognitive performance with objective tasks rather than self-ratings [1]. The cell office in that study registered 34.8 LAeq, a sound-level measure that averages noise over time; the activity-based setting was noisier. Office type explained 13.4% of the variance in cognitive performance, meaning the building layout was associated with a modest but real share of how well people performed [1].
That number is worth reading carefully. Thirteen percent is not a verdict that activity-based offices ruin concentration; it means most of the variation in performance came from something other than office type, while a measurable portion tracked the workspace itself [1]. The finding is consistent with the idea that the acoustic environment of open, shared settings is part of what separates the two office types, but the study design does not isolate noise as the sole cause.
Where the comparison gets murkier
Not every study finds activity-based offices behind. A relocation study comparing activity-based flex offices with cell offices found no difference between the two in general health or cognitive stress [2]. That matters because it shows the cell-office advantage is not universal across every outcome or every workplace. The caveat is scope: that study did not explicitly frame its comparison around real office noise, so it does not directly contradict the noise-focused finding [2].
The university study adds a different kind of qualification. When activity-based offices were introduced into an academic setting, occupants reported that the cell office beat the open plan on satisfaction with most aspects of the indoor environment, particularly acoustics and the ability to withdraw when needed [3]. This is a satisfaction measure, not an objective performance test, so it should not be read as proof that cell offices improve cognitive output. It does, however, line up with the idea that acoustic control is a recurring fault line between the two layouts.
How to weigh the evidence for a real workplace decision
If the question is strictly about objective cognitive performance under genuine office noise, the strongest signal favors cell offices, with office type explaining a modest share of performance variance in the one study that measured both noise and objective tasks [1]. The noise literature supplies a plausible reason: speech and open-office sound at ordinary levels can raise fatigue and shift measured performance [4].
But the evidence base is thin and uneven. The direct comparison is a single study, the relocation study found no cognitive-stress difference [2], and the satisfaction findings, while consistent with acoustic concerns, are not performance data [3]. A reader should treat the cell-office advantage as a real but modest and not-yet-replicated pattern rather than a settled rule, and should expect the gap to depend on how noisy the activity-based setting actually is and what kind of task a person is doing.
Sources used in this answer
Objective measures of cognitive performance in activity based workplaces and traditional office types
In a comparison of activity-based workplaces and cell offices with measured noise levels, office type explained 13.4% of the variance in objectively measured cognitive performance, with the cell office at 34.8 LAeq.
Productivity, satisfaction, work environment and health after relocation to an activity-based flex office—the active office design study
A relocation study comparing activity-based flex offices with cell offices found no difference between the two office types in general health or cognitive stress.
What happens to the physical and psychosocial work environment when activity-based offices are introduced into academia?
After activity-based offices were introduced in a university, occupants reported that the cell office was superior to the open plan on satisfaction with most indoor-environment aspects, particularly acoustics and the ability to withdraw.
Offices
People are highly affected by speech and office noise, and open-office noise at 55 dBA increased fatigue and changed objectively measured cognitive performance by about 2.4 units.