Perception of the acoustic environment during COVID-19 lockdown in Argentina.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly modified the behavior of societies. The application of isolation measures during the crisis resulted in changes in the acoustic environment. The aim of this work was to characterize the perception of the acoustic environment during the COVID-19 lockdown of people residing in Argentina in 2020. A descriptive cross-sectional correlational study was carried out. A virtual survey was conducted from April 14 to 26, 2020, and was answered mainly by social network users. During this period, Argentina was in a strict lockdown. The sample was finally composed of 1371 people between 18 and 79 years old. It was observed that most of the participants preferred the new acoustic environment. Mainly in the larger cities, before the isolation, mechanical sounds predominated, accompanied by the perception of irritation. Confinement brought a decrease in mechanical sounds and an increase in biological sounds, associated with feelings of tranquility and happiness. The time window opened by the lockdown offered an interesting scenario to assess the effect of anthropogenic noise pollution on the urban environment. This result offers a subjective approach, which contributes to understanding the link between individuals and communities with the environment.

Hearing and Exposure to Music in Adolescents From Four Schools of Córdoba, Argentina.

Purposes The aims of this study are (a) to characterize the hearing of adolescents from four schools of Córdoba, Argentina, through the analysis of conventional and extended high-frequency audiometric thresholds and otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) and (b) to analyze the association between the mentioned hearing tests and exposure to music. Method It was a cross-sectional correlational descriptive study. Hearing thresholds (250-16000 Hz), transient evoked OAEs, and distortion product OAEs were evaluated in 225 adolescents (450 ears) aged 14 and 15 years. The ears were split into two groups: Group 1 had thresholds ≤ 21 dB HL in all frequencies, and Group 2 had thresholds > 21 dB HL in at least one. Exposure to music was evaluated through a questionnaire. Results Statistically significant differences were found in both ears between Groups 1 and 2. A notch at 3000-6000 Hz was noted in both groups. Group 2 showed a progressive threshold increase from 9000 Hz. Amplitude decrease, negative values, absent distortion product OAEs, and transient evoked OAEs were noted even in Group 1. A statistically significant association between Groups 1 and 2 and the presence/absence of OAEs was observed in most frequencies. Ears with moderate or high exposure to music had greater hearing thresholds compared to ears with low exposure at most frequencies; this was more evident in Group 1. Regarding exposure to music and OAEs, no significant differences were found between the exposure categories. Conclusions The findings highlight the value of implementing hearing conservation programs in Argentina, analyzing hearing tests correlated with questionnaires about recreational noise exposure in order to detect vulnerable ears early.

Entorno sonoro más utilizado y reconocimiento del habla en usuarios de implante coclear / Exploratory descriptive study about the most used sound environment and speech recognition in patients with cochlear implants / Ambiente sonoro mais utilizado e reconhecimento da fala em pacientes usuários de implante coclear

Introducción: los implantes cocleares permiten seleccionar diferentes entornos sonoros para facilitar la escucha en distintos ambientes auditivos. El objetivo fue analizar el reconocimiento de palabras y oraciones en los entornos sonoros Cotidiano, Ruido y Focalizado en usuarios de implante coclear y; relacionar el reconocimiento con el entorno sonoro más utilizado. Material y método: Es un estudio transversal, en el cual se entrevistó, mediante un cuestionario, a 20 usuarios de procesador Freedom o CP810, de entre 15 y 76 años. Se evaluó el reconocimiento del habla mediante palabras y oraciones en los entornos Cotidiano, Ruido y Focalizado en ambientes simulados según las características acústicas para las cuales fue creada cada opción; y se clasificó en Muy bueno, Bueno, Regular y Malo. Resultados: En todos los entornos el reconocimiento fue en general Muy bueno. La mayoría de pacientes obtuvo reconocimiento Muy bueno en Cotidiano. Sin embargo, con ruido de fondo, Focalizado incluyó al mayor número de pacientes con reconocimiento Muy bueno. La totalidad de pacientes manifestó preferencia por algún entorno, siendo Cotidiano el más elegido. El 70% de pacientes utiliza el entorno que le permite la mejor performance de escucha, mientras que el 30% elige una opción diferente a la que le permite alcanzar el mayor reconocimiento del habla tanto de palabras como de oraciones. Conclusiones: Se sugiere que el especialista evalúe el rendimiento en cada entorno para asesorar a los pacientes sobre los beneficios de las diferentes opciones de escucha. Simultáneamente, impulsar investigaciones en nuestra población acerca de esta temática.

Introduction: cochlear implants allow choose between diferents “sound environments” to make listening easier in different auditory environments. The aim was to analyze words and sentences recognition in Everyday, Noise and Focus in cochlear implants users. Relate the recognition with the most “sound environment” used. Material and method: Cross-sectional study. Twenty cochlear implants users were interviewed through a questionnaire. They were using Freedom or CP810 processors. The age range was between 15 and 76 years. Words and sentences perception with Everyday, Noise and Focus was evaluated in simulated environments according to the acoustic characteristics for which each option was created. Recognition was classified in Very Good, Good, Regular and Bad. Results: Mostly, speech recognition was very good in all “sound environments ”. The majority of patients obtained very good recognition in Everyday. However, with background noise, Focus was better. All patients preferred some “sound environment”. Everyday was the most chosen. 70% of patients used the “sound environment” that give them the best listening performance but 30% choose a wrong option. Conclusions: It is suggested that the specialist assess the speech recognition in each “sound environment” to advise patients about the benefits of different listening options. Simultaneously, to promote research in our population on this topic.

Introducão: implantes cocleares permitem selecionar diferentes ambientes sonoros para facilitar a audição em diferentes situações de escuta. O objetivo foi analisar o reconhecimento de palavras e frases em ambientes sonoros Cotidiano, Ruído e Focalizado nos usuários de implante coclear; relacionar reconhecimento com o ambiente sonoro mais utilizado. Material e método: É um estudo transversal em que foram entrevistados por questionário 20 usuários de Freedom ou processador CP810, entre 15 e 76 anos. Reconhecimento da fala foi avaliada usando palavras e frases em Cotidiano, Ruído e Focalizado em ambientes simulados de acordo as características acusticas de cada opção; e ele se classificou em Muito bom, Bom, Regular e Mau. Resultados: Em todos os ambientes o reconhecimento foi geralmente Muito bom. A maioria dos pacientes obteve reconhecimento Muito bom em Cotidiano. No entanto, com o ruído de fundo, Focalizado inclui-o o maior número de pacientes com reconhecimento Muito bom. Todos os pacientes manifestaram preferência por algum ambiente, sendo Cotidiano o mais escolhido. Em 70% dos pacientes, utiliza o ambiente preferido que oferece o maior reconhecimento da fala, enquanto 30% preferem uma opção diferente que lhe permite alcançar o maior reconhecimento da fala em palavras e frases. Conclusões: Sugere-se que o especialista avaliar o desempenho de cada ambiente para aconselhar os pacientes sobre os benefícios de opções de escuta. Simultaneamente impulsionar pesquisa em nossa população sobre este assunto.