The study investigated whether standard acoustic measurements of building‑sound sources could predict the perceived annoyance of a person walking in socks on wooden floors. In a controlled listening experiment, participants rated the annoyance of both conventional test sources (a standard hammer and a Japanese rubber ball) and the walking stimulus. Correlation analysis revealed only a weak relationship between the measured acoustic parameters and the subjective annoyance of the walking stimulus, and the correlation between the standard sources and the walking stimulus was similarly low. When the analysis was repeated using subjective loudness instead of annoyance, the correlation with the measured acoustic values improved slightly, yet the link between the standard sources and the walking stimulus remained only modest. These findings indicate that the conventional acoustic metrics do not adequately capture the annoyance caused by walking on wooden floors.

To explore alternative predictors, the researchers examined the maximum long‑term annoyance factor (LAF,max,n) and a newly developed metric, WLE. Logistic regression using LAF,max,n to classify participants into low and high long‑term annoyance groups (cut‑off at 25 %) achieved perfect separation of the two groups, yielding a McFadden’s R² of 1.0. Although the model’s statistical fit was excellent, the very small sample size limits confidence in the result, and further data are required to confirm the utility of LAF,max,n for predicting long‑term annoyance. When LAF,max,n was applied to the standard sources, the predicted annoyance matched the measured values reasonably well, but the correlation between these predictions and the annoyance of the walking stimulus decreased, as expected when the underlying annoyance scales diverge. The WLE metric showed similar behaviour: it correlated better with the annoyance of the standard sources but offered no improvement in predicting the walking stimulus annoyance. Consequently, the study concluded that a psychoacoustic classification system capable of estimating walking‑induced annoyance from standard source measurements could not be established within the scope of this project.

Field surveys complemented the laboratory work. Fourteen occupants of surveyed wooden‑floor buildings completed a questionnaire. Only 20.2 % of 332 respondents reported being largely or completely dissatisfied with the acoustic quality, and the perceived importance of acoustic comfort was lower than that of visual comfort, energy consumption, spatial layout, and thermal comfort. These results suggest that, in practice, occupants generally accept the acoustic performance of wooden floors, even though the laboratory data indicate that conventional acoustic metrics may not fully explain perceived annoyance.

The project was carried out in collaboration with several German wood‑construction associations, universities, and industry partners. The working group included experts from the German Association of Prefabricated Construction (BDF), the German Association of Wood‑Prefabricated Construction (DHV), the German Association of Wood‑Construction and Roof‑Construction (GHAD), and academic institutions such as the Technical University of Rosenheim and the Hochschule Döpfer. The project phases—AP01, AP03, and AP06—spanned from the identification of standard floor configurations to the development of a guidance handbook and the dissemination of results through publications and professional events. Funding was provided by the German Wood Construction Institute, and the project built on the legacy of the earlier AcuWood initiative, aiming to deliver a user‑friendly psychoacoustic classification system for wooden floor assemblies.