Reviews of the effects of noise on performance carried out in the 1980s suggested that results depended on the type of noise, nature of the task, and characteristics of the person performing in noise. This general view has been confirmed in the recent meta-analysis and synthesis by Szalma and Hancock (2011). There are, however, some notable omissions from this review. For example, beneficial effects of noise in low alertness states receive no coverage, and yet these provide the strongest support for arousal theories. The importance of predictability and perceived control was also overlooked, yet relevant studies, especially those looking at aftereffects of noise, are crucial for explanations based on compensatory effort. Also neglected was research emphasizing the importance of examining the microstructure of responding and strategies of performance. Recent accounts emphasize the importance of considering the specific processes involved in carrying out a task and show that analyses based on gross characteristics present an inappropriate profile of effects. Laboratory studies of auditory distraction are now largely restricted to investigation of the effects of irrelevant speech. Noise and performance research has also moved toward field studies, including effects of chronic noise exposure on children. Future noise research is likely to focus on different noise parameters and performance outcomes, potentially leading to the investigation of different underlying mechanisms. This type of research will have clear implications for policy and practice.