Noise in hospital environments, particularly in operating rooms, poses challenges to both patient comfort and healthcare professionals' performance. Among the sources of noise, anesthesia monitoring alarms are essential for patient safety, yet no clear guidelines exist regarding their optimal sound level. Excessive alarm volume may increase distraction and cognitive load, especially for surgical trainees, potentially impairing their focus and performance during procedures. This randomized pilot interventional study aims to evaluate the impact of anesthesia alarm sound intensity on the mental workload of surgical trainees performing simulated surgeries. Participants will be randomly assigned to conditions with either an optimized alarm volume or a higher standard volume during simulated tasks. Cognitive load will be assessed using objective physiological measures such as heart rate variability and pupillometry, as well as subjective evaluations with tools like the NASA-TLX and SURG-TLX scales. The primary goal is to determine whether an optimized alarm sound level can reduce cognitive strain without compromising vigilance required for patient safety. Findings from this study are expected to provide evidence-based recommendations for auditory ergonomics in operating rooms, ultimately improving working conditions for surgical teams and enhancing both training and patient safety.

Noise pollution in hospital environments, particularly within operating rooms (ORs), is a growing concern. It can impact not only the comfort and well-being of patients but also the cognitive performance and concentration of healthcare professionals. Among the various sources of noise, auditory alarms used in anesthesia monitoring are critical for patient safety. However, despite their importance, there are currently no established guidelines or regulations defining the optimal volume at which these alarms should be set.

Previous studies have examined the effects of background noise and music on surgical performance, with some showing that certain types of music can reduce stress or improve focus. However, the specific impact of anesthesia alarm sounds especially when they are excessively loud or frequent remains poorly understood. These alarms may distract surgical teams, particularly trainees, and contribute to increased cognitive load, potentially impairing performance during surgical procedures.

Cognitive load refers to the amount of mental effort being used in working memory. In the operating room, excessive cognitive load can hinder performance, decision-making, and reaction time, particularly in complex or high-pressure situations. Understanding how to manage and optimize environmental factors that influence mental workload is therefore essential, especially for surgical trainees still developing their skills.

This randomized pilot interventional study aims to investigate the effect of anesthesia alarm sound intensity on the mental workload of novice surgeons performing simulated procedures. By focusing on surgical trainees working on a high-fidelity simulator, we aim to create a controlled yet realistic environment to assess the cognitive impact of varying alarm volumes.

The study will compare two conditions: an optimized alarm sound level and a higher-level alarm sound (above ambient noise). Participants will be randomly assigned to one of these conditions during their simulated surgical tasks. The primary outcome is the cognitive load experienced by the trainees under each condition.

To comprehensively assess cognitive load, both objective and subjective tools will be used. Objective measures will include heart rate variability (HRV) and pupillometry two physiological indicators of stress and cognitive effort. Subjective cognitive load will be measured using validated scales such as the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) or its surgical adaptation, the SURG-TLX. These tools evaluate dimensions such as mental demand, effort, frustration, and performance.

By combining physiological data with subjective reports, the study seeks to capture a multidimensional understanding of how alarm noise affects surgical trainees. The ultimate goal is to determine whether reducing the intensity of auditory alarms while maintaining their effectiveness can minimize unnecessary cognitive strain and distraction during procedures.

The findings of this study are expected to inform future recommendations regarding auditory ergonomics in operating rooms. Establishing evidence-based guidelines for alarm sound levels could contribute to a safer, less stressful working environment for surgical teams. This is particularly important in the training context, where the balance between realism and cognitive manageability is crucial for learning and performance.

In conclusion, this pilot study addresses a critical and underexplored aspect of the surgical environment: the cognitive impact of anesthesia alarm noise. By evaluating its effects on novice surgeons, the research aims to promote better alarm management strategies, improve working conditions, and ultimately enhance both patient safety and surgical education.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Surgical residents or experienced surgeons;
• Surgeons with normal hearing;
• Surgeons capable of performing surgical sutures (regardless of skill level);
• Surgeons able and willing to follow all study procedures according to the protocol;
• Surgeons who have understood, signed, and dated the informed consent form provided on the day of enrollment.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Surgeons undergoing beta-blocker treatment;
• Surgeons with known cardiac pathology;
• Surgeons who do not consent to participate in the study;
• Surgeons with known hearing problems;
• Surgeons who fail the hearing test;
• Surgeons who worked on-call or night shifts during the night before the evaluation day.
• Surgical trainees at the Lorraine Cancer Institute.
• Adults under legal protection (guardianship, curatorship, or legal supervision);Persons deprived of liberty;Pregnant or breastfeeding women.

At this time, the individual participant data (IPD) will not be shared due to concerns regarding participant privacy and confidentiality, as well as institutional policies restricting data sharing.