Four earplugs in search of a rating system.

OBJECTIVE: The performance of four insert earplugs was evaluated by determining the Noise Reduction Rating (NRR) and the Subject-Fit Noise Reduction Rating [NRR(SF)]. The NRR and NRR(SF) were calculated from real-ear attenuation at threshold (REAT) data collected using the experimenter-fit protocol described in the now-rescinded ANSI S3.19-1974 (American National Standards Institute, 1974) and the subject-fit protocol of the recently revised ANSI S12.6-1997 (American National Standards Institute, 1997) standards for REAT measurement. DESIGN: A comparison of the experimenter-fit and subject-fit REAT performance was conducted using four pools of subjects, one pool per protector. Each device was tested with at least 20 subjects, the minimum size necessary to estimate the NRR(SF) for an earplug. The REAT was measured with third-octave narrowband noise stimuli for center frequencies at 0.125, 0.25,0.5, 1, 2, 3.15, 4, 6.3, and 8 kHz. The REAT means and standard deviations were compared with the manufacturer data. RESULTS: This study showed that the NRR(SF) is typically lower than the NRR and that the NRR(SF) is not well-predicted by the NRR derating schemes recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. CONCLUSION: The difference between the present NRR on hearing protector labels and the NRR(SF) is sufficiently large and unpredictable enough to render the application of derating schemes meaningless even though these schemes attempt to account for the difference between the laboratory and real-world outcomes. The only way to provide a protector noise rating that is predictive of a real-world outcome is to retest the protector according to the subject-fit method of ANSI S12.6-1997 (American National Standards Institute, 1997).

Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimating the field attenuation of hearing protection devices. Part III. The validity of using subject-fit data.

The mandate of ASA Working Group S12/WG11 has been to develop "laboratory and/or field procedure(s) that yield useful estimates of field performance" of hearing protection devices (HPDs). A real-ear attenuation at threshold procedure was selected, devised, tested via an interlaboratory study, and incorporated into a draft standard that was approved in 1997 [J. D. Royster et at., "Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimating the field attenuation of hearing protection devices. Part I. Research of Working Group 11, Accredited Standards Committee S12, Noise," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99, 1506-1526 (1996); ANSI S12.6-1997, "American National Standard Methods for Measuring Real-Ear Attenuation of Hearing Protectors" (American National Standards Institute, New York, 1997)]. The real-world estimation procedure utilizes a subject-fit methodology with listeners who are audiometrically proficient, but inexperienced in the use of HPDs. A key factor in the decision to utilize the subject-fit method was an evaluation of the representativeness of the laboratory data vis-à-vis attenuation values achieved by workers in practice. Twenty-two field studies were reviewed to develop a data base for comparison purposes. Results indicated that laboratory subject-fit attenuation values were typically equivalent to or greater than the field attenuation values, and yielded a better estimate of those values than did experimenter-fit or experimenter-supervised fit types of results. Recent data which are discussed in the paper, but which were not available at the time of the original analyses, confirm the findings.

The effect of fitting procedure on hearing protector attenuation.

Realistically evaluating the effectiveness of hearing protectors continues to be a major problem in hearing conservation. The purpose of this study was to examine a laboratory-based fitting procedure (User Fit) that was designed to yield hearing protector attenuation values similar to that derived from field studies. Ten subjects who were naive to hearing protectors were used in a repeated measures design that measured real ear attenuation at threshold for two types of plugs. Each subject was tested in two fitting conditions that varied based on the type and degree of assistance given to the subjects by the experimenter. The results showed significant differences in attenuation based on the fitting procedure used, with the User Fit best approximating field data. In addition, a generalized learning effect was noted. The results suggest that any experience with earplugs leads to subsequent improvement in attenuation despite the type of earplug used. Further testing is planned with greater numbers of subjects and additional types of hearing protectors.

Real ear attenuation at threshold for three audiometric headphone devices: implications for maximum permissible ambient noise level standards.

Attenuation measurements were made using the ANSI S12.6-1984 protocol on a standard Telephonics headset with TDH-50P earphones and Model 51 cushions, Amplivox Audiocups headphone enclosures, and Peltor AudioMate headphone enclosures. Each of the enclosures housed Telephonics TDH-50P earphones with Model 51 cushions. The mean attenuation values obtained were compared with those previously reported, and reasons for discrepancies were analyzed. Pure-tone threshold shifts in background noise complying with ANSI S3.1-1977 and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1983) maximum permissible ambient noise level standards were estimated on the basis of the attenuation values for each headphone device, and the adequacy of these current standards for accurate pure-tone threshold assessment was considered. The results indicated that Model 51 cushions alone are insufficient to attenuate the ambient noise levels permitted under ANSI S3.1-1977, and even the utilization of noise-excluding headphone enclosures does not reduce the background noise levels permitted under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1983) to a sufficient degree to permit testing down to 0 dB HL.

Hearing loss in the chinchilla from impact and continuous noise exposure.

The relative hazard posed to the peripheral auditory system by impact/impulse and continuous noise of the same power spectrum was determined. Impact noise was generated by striking a nail with a hammer and was digitally recorded. The acoustical power spectrum of the impact was determined and pink noise was filtered to produce a continuous noise stimulus with the same acoustic power spectrum. Pre-exposure auditory evoked response (AER) thresholds were obtained at 1, 2, 4, and 8 kHz on 16 adult chinchillas. The pool of animals was divided into two equal groups based upon pre-exposure AER thresholds. One group was exposed to impact noise and the other group to the filtered pink noise. Exposures were 4 h/day for 5 days. Thirty days following the exposure, auditory evoked response thresholds were remeasured. Changes in auditory sensitivity were determined by subtracting the pre-exposure thresholds from the post-exposure thresholds. Hearing threshold shifts of the impact noise group were significantly greater (p less than 0.0001) than the hearing threshold shifts of the continuous noise group. These data indicate a need to more closely examine the parameters and effects of impact noise. There may be a need to develop expanded damage-risk criteria for occupational exposure to impulse/impact noise.

Real-ear attenuation of earmuffs in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired individuals.

Many of the 9 million workers exposed to average noise levels of 85 dB (A) and above are required to wear hearing protection devices, and many of these workers have already developed noise-induced hearing impairments. There is some evidence in the literature that hearing-impaired users may not receive as much attenuation from hearing protectors as normal-hearing users. This study assessed real-ear attenuation at threshold for ten normal-hearing and ten hearing-impaired subjects using a set of David Clark 10A earmuffs. Testing procedures followed the specifications of ANSI S12.6-1984. The results showed that the hearing-impaired subjects received slightly more attenuation than the normal-hearing subjects at all frequencies, but these differences were not statistically significant. These results provide additional support to the finding that hearing protection devices are capable of providing as much attenuation to hearing-impaired users as they do to normal-hearing individuals.

Analysis of a hearing conservation program data base: factors other than workplace noise.

The hearing conservation records of a large, multiple-facility printing company were obtained. The records were analyzed for factors associated with Standard Threshold Shift. These factors included hearing levels, employee age and sex, occupational and nonoccupational noise exposure histories, and medical history. The analysis revealed that statistically significant factors associated with Standard Threshold Shift were from medical and nonoccupational noise exposure histories, and not occupational noise exposure.

Effects of normal and pathologic eardrum impedance on sound pressure in the aided ear canal: a computer simulation.

Reported herein are results of computer simulations of aided sound spectra in ears with normal and pathologic eardrum impedance. The computer technique used in this study has been reported elsewhere [D. P. Egolf, D. R. Tree, and L. L. Feth, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 63, 264-271 (1978)]. Consequently, to develop reader confidence in the computer scheme, its application to real ears was first tested. This was accomplished by (1) comparing computed spectral data with in-the-ear measurements and (2) comparing real ear minus 2-cc coupler data-both computer generated--with an idealized difference curve published elsewhere [R. M. Sachs and M. D. Burkhard, unpublished rep. no. 20022-1, Industrial Research Products, Inc., Elk Grove Village, IL (1972)]. Results indicate that the wide variation in eardrum impedance among normals evidenced in other studies produces a corresponding wide variation in aided spectrum shape. Likewise, simulations utilizing two sets of pathologic eardrum impedance data obtained from the literature show that aided sound spectra in such ears are likely to be significantly different from those occurring in normal ears. These findings suggest, as others have concluded, that there may be a substantial variation in spectrum shape among individuals wearing identically the same hearing aid--even if those individuals have normal hearing. In conclusion, questions are raised about the use of real-ear simulators and the need for a comprehensive computer-based model of an entire hearing aid.

Rejection of hearing aids: attitudes of a geriatric sample.

This study reports the findings of a survey of retirees age 65 and older, involving scaled responses to 35 possible reasons for rejection of hearing aid use. The foremost reasons for nonuse of hearing aids included cost, calling attention to the handicap, dealer practices, concern about the nature of the amplified sound, difficulty manipulating hearing aid controls, and not knowing where to obtain a hearing aid.

Noise reduction characteristics of prefabricated sound-isolating enclosures: a laboratory, field measurement, and theoretical analysis.

The noise reduction characteristics of prefabricated sound-isolating enclosures were evaluated. Two enclosures from each of two manufacturers were evaluated for noise reduction characteristics following ASTM 596-78 methods. Thirteen enclosures were field-evaluated for noise reduction using two different procedures. The differences between laboratory- and field-determined noise reduction measures are considered and a theoretical model of noise reduction by audiometric enclosures is evaluated.

Test-retest reliability of a distinctive feature difference test for hearing aid evaluation.

A short closed-set test of speech discrimination using consonants frequently confused by the hearing impaired and scored on the basis of distinctive features was developed and examined for reliability. In experiment I the Distinctive Feature Difference (DFD) Test and the CID W-22 Test were low-pass filtered and presented in a background of speech noise to 21 subjects with normal hearing. The DFD displayed superior test-retest reliability compared with the CID Auditory Test W-22 as indicated by small S.D.s, narrow range of individual test scores, and a lack of significant difference between means. In experiment II, the unfiltered DFD Test was presented in noise to 20 subjects with sensorineural hearing loss. Results similar to those of experiment I were obtained, indicating good test-retest reliability for the DFD Test with hearing-impaired subjects.

Judgments of hearing aid processed music.

Paired comparison perception and preference judgments of hearing aid processed music were examined under conditions of extended and reduced high and low-frequency ranges. The performance of 20 subjects with mild to moderate hearing impairment was compared with an equal number of normal hearing controls. Subjects with normal hearing indicated perception of and preference for extended ranges for both high and low frequencies. However the perception and preference judgments of hearing-impaired subjects were essentially random for the high-frequency ranges; but accurate perception and preference was found for extended low-frequency adjustments. Implications for hearing aid design and use are discussed.

Hearing aid microphone location effects on speech discrimination in noise.

The interaction of the head with a sound impinging upon it has a direct effect on the sound as it is seen at the port of the hearing aid microphone. While other investigators have evaluated this effect in terms of changes in the frequency response of the hearing aid, this investigation sought to evaluate the significance of the effect in terms of the intelligibility of speech presented in a noisy background. The three typical locations of a hearing aid microphone were simulated with a high-fidelity probe-tube microphone placed around the right ear of KEMAR. The locations were: over the ear, behind the ear, and in the ear. An earmold was kept in the ear at all times. Speech and noise were presented to the microphone and recorded on tape for presentation to normally hearing subjects. The results indicated that so long as the hearing aid microphone is located on the head, around the ear, no one location is better than any other for speech intelligibility.

Identification of synthetic /bdg/ by hearing-impaired listeners under monotic and dichotic formant presentation.

Individuals with sensorineural hearing losses of both flat and sloping configuration evidence difficulty in identifying stop consonant place of articulation. To assess whether upward spread of masking is responsible for this difficulty, we presented hearing-impaired listeners with stimuli from a /ba da ga/ continuum in both monotic and dichotic (F1 to one ear; F2/F3 to the other ear) listening conditions. In the monotic conditions, listeners with similar audiograms evidence great variability in identification performance. In the dichotic conditions performance did not generally improve. For a few listeners, however, the improvement was striking. At moderate levels of signal presentation, upward spread of masking does not appear to be responsible for the poor identification of place by the majority of listeners with moderate hearing losses.

The effect of spatial separation of speech and noise sources on the optimal setting of the master hearing aid.

The sound fields in which hearing aid evaluations are performed with tests of speech discrimination are far from standardized. This investigation was concerned with the nature of the sound field in terms of separation of speech and noise sources as related to the optimal setting of a master hearing aid as indicated by listener performance scores on tests of speech discrimination in noise. Two sound fields were used in this investigation, one with speech and noise from the same source and another with speech and noise sources separated by 90 degrees and 45 degrees off the axis of the midsagittal plane of the listener. The repeatability of the optimal setting of the master hearing aid from one configuration to the other and the resolution available in each sound field, were of prime interest. The data indicated that the sound field configuration has no bearing on the optimal setting of the master hearing aid. The data did indicate that maximum resolution was available in the case of speech and noise from the same source.

Filter effect of earmold venting: comparison of electroacoustic and psychoacoustic methods of evaluation.

The filter effect of venting an earmold was evaluated by measuring the coupler-acoustic and threshold responses to open versus closed earmolds. In the coupler-acoustic technique the effect of venting was determined by measuring the output of the experimental earmolds seated on a modified 2-cc coupler with a specified signal impressed upon the earphone. The real ear threshold technique called for the determination of threshold by five listeners for the same earphone-earmold system. The data indicated that the difference between the coupler and threshold measures were of the same order of magnitude as the difference seen by other investigators reporting coupler and real ear-probe tube microphone measures. It was concluded that the threshold technique provides the same general description of the effects of venting an earmold as does the probe tube technique and should thus provide a useful method for determination of the filter effects produced by the venting of an earmold.

Variable venting valve for earmolds.

The frequency response and loudness reduction characteristics of earmolds with variable venting valves (VVV) were investigated. Both side-branch and laterally vented earmolds were employed. Sound pressures were measured at 44 frequencies from 100 to 4 000 HZ in a modified HA-2 coupler with the VVV in four stages of opening: closed; 1/3 open; 2/3 open and 3/3 open. The effect of venting is primarily in the low frequencies. Little or no reduction in intensity is observed in the 'speech frequency' range and a modest amount is noted in the higher frequencies. The side-branch vented earmolds were more effective than the laterally vented earmolds. Calculated loudness reductions in phons were small. The effectiveness of the VVV, whether assessed by the frequency response or loudness reduction characteristics, is achieved within the first 1/3 of opening: further opening has little effect. The utility of the VVV, especially to the geriatric hearing aid user, is questionable.