Sound localization performance with level-dependent hearing protection devices

2016 ◽  
Vol 140 (4) ◽  
pp. 3200-3200
Author(s):  
Eric R. Thompson ◽  
Griffin D. Romigh
Keyword(s):  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Localization Performance ◽  
Protection Devices

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.

Effect of Hearing and Head Protection on the Localization of Tonal and Broadband Reverse Alarms

2021 ◽  
pp. 001872082199222
Author(s):  
Chantal Laroche ◽  
Christian Giguère ◽  
Véronique Vaillancourt ◽  
Claudia Marleau ◽  
Marie-France Cadieux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sound Localization ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Construction Safety ◽  
Tablet Computer ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Minimal Effect ◽  
Heavy Vehicles ◽  
Single Cycle ◽  
Head Protection ◽  
Protection Devices

Objective This study explored the effects of hearing protection devices (HPDs) and head protection on the ability of normal-hearing individuals to localize reverse alarms in background noise. Background Among factors potentially contributing to accidents involving heavy vehicles, reverse alarms can be difficult to localize in space, leading to errors in identifying the source of danger. Previous studies have shown that traditional tonal alarms are more difficult to localize than broadband alarms. In addition, HPDs and safety helmets may further impair localization. Method Standing in the middle of an array of eight loudspeakers, participants with and without HPDs (passive and level-dependent) had to identify the loudspeaker emitting a single cycle of the alarm while performing a task on a tablet computer. Results The broadband alarm was easier to localize than the tonal alarm. Passive HPDs had a significant impact on sound localization (earmuffs generally more so than earplugs), particularly double hearing protection, and level-dependent HPDs did not fully restore sound localization abilities. The safety helmet had a much lesser impact on performance than HPDs. Conclusion Where good sound localization abilities are essential in noisy workplaces, the broadband alarm should be used, double hearing protection should be avoided, and earplug-style passive or level-dependent devices may be a better choice than earmuff-style devices. Construction safety helmets, however, seem to have only a minimal effect on sound localization. Application Results of this study will help stakeholders make decisions that are more informed in promoting safer workplaces.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document