Free‐field sound localization with nonlinear hearing protection devices

2006 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. 3080-3081 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly B. Lukas ◽  
William A. Ahroon
Keyword(s):  
Sound Localization ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Protection Devices ◽  
Field Sound

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Hearing Protection Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (21) ◽  
pp. 11693
Author(s):  
Chanbeom Kwak ◽  
Woojae Han
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Sound Attenuation ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Protection Devices

To prevent intensive noise exposure in advance and be safely controlled during such exposure, hearing protection devices (HPDs) have been widely used by workers. The present study evaluates the effectiveness of these HPDs, partitioned into three different outcomes, such as sound attenuation, sound localization, and speech perception. Seven electronic journal databases were used to search for published articles from 2000 to 2021. Based on inclusion criteria, 20 articles were chosen and then analyzed. For a systematic review and meta-analysis, standardized mean differences (SMDs) and effect size were calculated using a random-effect model. The funnel plot and Egger’s regression analysis were conducted to assess the risk of bias. From the overall results of the included 20 articles, we found that the HPD function performed significantly well for their users (SMDs: 0.457, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.034–0.881, p < 0.05). Specifically, a subgroup analysis showed a meaningful difference in sound attenuation (SMDs: 1.080, 95% CI: 0.167–1.993, p < 0.05) when to wear and not to wear HPDs, but indicated no significance between the groups for sound localization (SMDs: 0.177, 95% CI: 0.540–0.894, p = 0.628) and speech perception (SMDs: 0.366, 95% CI: −0.100–1.086, p = 0.103). The HPDs work well for their originally designated purposes without interfering to find the location of the sound sources and for talking between the workers. Taking into account various factors, such as the characteristics of the users, selection of appropriate types, and fitting methods for wearing in different circumstances, seems to be necessary for a reliable systematic analysis in terms of offering the most useful information to the workers.

Predicting the effect of hearing-protection devices on horizontal-plane sound localization

2021 ◽  
Vol 150 (4) ◽  
pp. A340-A340
Author(s):  
Nathaniel J. Spencer ◽  
Zachariah N. Ennis ◽  
Natalie Jackson ◽  
Brian D. Simpson ◽  
Eric R. Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Sound Localization ◽  
Horizontal Plane ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Plane Sound ◽  
Protection Devices

Sound Localization with Hearing Protectors: Performance and Head Motion Analysis in a Visual Search Task

2002 ◽  
Vol 46 (17) ◽  
pp. 1618-1622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian D. Simpson ◽  
Robert S. Bolia ◽  
Richard L McKinley ◽  
Douglas S Brungart
Keyword(s):  
Visual Search ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Search Task ◽  
Visual Search Task ◽  
Visual Target ◽  
Head Motion ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Motion Data ◽  
Auditory Cue ◽  
Protection Devices

The effects of hearing protection on sound localization were examined in the context of an auditory-cued visual search task. Participants were required to locate a visual target in a field of 5, 20, or 50 visual distractors randomly distributed throughout ±180° of azimuth and from approximately −70° to +90° in elevation. Four conditions were examined in which an auditory cue, spatially co-located with the visual target, was presented. In these conditions, participants wore (1) earplugs, (2) earmuffs, (3) both earplugs and earmuffs, or (4) no hearing protection. In addition, a control condition was examined in which no auditory cue was provided. Visual search times and head motion data suggest that the degree to which localization cues are disrupted with hearing protection devices varies with the type of device worn. Moreover, when both earplugs and earmuffs are worn, search times approach those found with no auditory cue, suggesting that sound localization cues are nearly completely eliminated in this condition.

scholarly journals Situational Awareness: The Effect of Stimulus Type and Hearing Protection on Sound Localization

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (21) ◽  
pp. 7044
Author(s):  
Leah Fostick ◽  
Nir Fink
Keyword(s):  
Sound Localization ◽  
Situational Awareness ◽  
Mirror Image ◽  
Spoken Word ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Speech Stimuli ◽  
Protection Devices ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Image Reversal ◽  
Reversal Errors

 The purpose of the current study was to test sound localization of a spoken word, rarely studied in the context of localization, compared to pink noise and a gunshot, while taking into account the source position and the effect of different hearing protection devices (HPDs) used by the listener. Ninety participants were divided into three groups using different HPDs. Participants were tested twice, under with- and no-HPD conditions, and were requested to localize the different stimuli that were delivered from one of eight speakers evenly distributed around them (starting from 22.5°). Localization of the word stimulus was more difficult than that of the other stimuli. HPD usage resulted in a larger mean root-mean-square error (RMSE) and increased mirror image reversal errors for all stimuli. In addition, HPD usage increased the mean RMSE and mirror image reversal errors for stimuli delivered from the front and back, more than for stimuli delivered from the left and right. HPDs affect localization, both due to attenuation and to limitation of pinnae cues when using earmuffs. Difficulty localizing the spoken word should be considered when assessing auditory functionality and should be further investigated to include HPDs with different attenuation spectra and levels, and to further types of speech stimuli. 

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Hearing Protection Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chanbeom Kwak ◽  
Woojae Han
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Sound Attenuation ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Protection Devices

Abstract Background: To prevent intensive noise exposure in advance and be safely controlled during such exposure, hearing protection devices (HPDs) have widely been used for workers. The present study evaluates the effectiveness of these HPDs, partitioned into three different outcomes, such as sound attenuation, sound localization, and speech perception. Methods: For thus systematic review and meta-analysis, standardized mean differences (SMDs) and effect size were calculated using a random-effect model. Seven electronic journal databases were used to search published articles from 2000 to 2020. Based on inclusion criteria, 20 articles were chosen and then analyzed. Results: Overall, the HPD function performed significantly well for their users (SMDs: 0.457, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.034-0.881, p< 0.05). Specifically, a subgroup analysis showed a meaningful difference in sound attenuation (SMDs: 1.080, 95% CI: 0.167-1.993, p< 0.05) when to wear and not to wear HPDs, but indicated no significance between the groups for sound localization (SMDs: 0.177, 95% CI: 0.540-0.894, p = 0.628) and speech perception (SMDs: 0.366, 95% CI: -0.100 -1.086, p = 0.103). Conclusions: The HPDs work well for their originally designated purposes without interfering to find the location of the sound sources and for talking between workers. In a further study, various factors, such as characteristics of the users, selection of appropriate types, and fitting methods for wearing in different circumstances should be differenciated in terms of offering the most useful infomation to the workers.

Transfer function of open ear importance in assessment of hearing protection devices noise reduction

2021 ◽  
Vol 61 (10) ◽  
pp. 655-661
Author(s):  
Ludmila V. Prokopenko ◽  
Maria V. Bulgakova ◽  
Nicolay N. Courierov ◽  
Alla V. Lagutina
Keyword(s):  
Transfer Function ◽  
Objective Assessment ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Acoustic Properties ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Single Digit ◽  
Actual Problem ◽  
Uncertainty Of Measurements ◽  
Protection Devices ◽  
The Difference

Introduction. Objective assessment of the noise redaction (NR) of individual hearing protection devices (HDP) in industrial conditions is actual problem despite numerous studies in this direction in many countries. This study aimed to implement the F-MIRE method for measuring the NR of HDPs, considering the transfer function of the outer ear. Materials and methods. HDP performance indicators measured by the real ear attenuation threshold (REAT) method in the free field, do not fully reflect the protective properties of HDP in specific production conditions and for a specific employee, according to many researchers. The measurement method using two microphones, called Field-MIRE (F-MIRE), allows you to determine NR as the difference in sound pressure, external noise and noise inside the external auditory meatus (EAM). But since these microphones are located in different acoustic conditions, it becomes necessary use at least two blocks of correction coefficients to get real results. One block - considering the properties of the acoustic probe, the second - should consider the transfer function of open ear. The measurements of the TFOE in 18 volunteers and the evaluation of the NR of the SOMZ-1 "Jaguar" earmuff in industrial conditions were carried out. Results. This study has shown the effectiveness of the implementation of the F-MIRE method for an adequate assessment of the NR of earmuff in industrial conditions. The special headband uses for measuring the TFOE allows you to standardize the location of measuring microphones relative to the volunteer's head and reduce the uncertainty of measurements. Unlike the REAT method with binaural listening in a free field, the F-MIRE method allows you to determine the TFOE for each ear of an employee. Our research has shown that TFOE differences between the right and left ears one-man can be significant. Conclusion. The NR determination by the difference of sound pressures measured by an external microphone and a MIRE microphone, without considering the acoustic properties of the outer ear underestimates both spectral and single-digit NR indicators.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document