In a recent paper, Poulton (1980) has discussed some of my own experimental work on noise and performance. He put forward the view that the results were due to acoustic information derived from the apparatus. This view has of course already been discussed extensively in the literature and repudiated by myself as vigorously as academic propriety allows (Broadbent, 1976, 1977, 1978). Poulton now suggests not merely that such. an artefact existed, but that I myself was aware of it and concealed it. Only two points need to be made in reply. First, readers of Perceptual and Motor Skills should be made aware that this matter is solely of personal or historical, and not of scientific, interest. In a paper published in Britain, Poulton (1978) has now accepted that the phenomena claimed in my own studies, and in those of Hockey, have also been obtained in later studies where Poulton himself agrees that no apparatus artefact can conceivably have been involved. That is, noise does produce reduced detection in vigilance measured with a risky criterion, does give the change in distribution of attention sometimes called 'funnel vision', and does give errors on a serial reaction task. Poulton attributes the first effect to changes in internal speech, and the second to increased arousal. The third he explains by the fall in arousal after the stage of increase, which causes inefficienq even if the noise is turned off. These theories are of course open to debate; but the key point is that rhe phenomena are in general not in dispute, merely my own original claim to have established them. Second, Poulton bases his suggestion of deliberate suppression on a claim that, at a certain scientific meeting, I declined to answer a question whether indeed I had known of acoustic anefacts in my work. This claim is quite untrue. In reply to his question, I immediately and categorically denied his suggestion. As verbal statements may be misheard, it is proper to repeat in print that at no time was I aware of any acoustic cues in my apparatus. Nor in fact have 1 any reason now to change that belief. As Poulton himself makes dear, he has been pressed repeatedly by myself and others to produce some concrete evidence in favour of his view that the results were artefactual. He has not however done so; and the reasons for denying his view seem overwhelming. Beyond this formal denial, going further into the questions of interpersonal relationships raised by Poulton seems neither desirable nor necessary.