Active noise reduction versus conventional hearing protection. Relative benefits for normal-hearing and impaired listeners.

The benefits of active noise reduction (ANR) hearing protectors were assessed in two groups of normal-hearing subjects, under and over the age of 40 years, and one group with bilateral high-tone hearing loss. Subjects were tested with the ears unoccluded and fitted with conventional sound attenuating E-A-R foam plugs, E-A-R HI-FI plugs, and Bilsom Viking muffs; and one ANR muff, the Peltor 7004. Within each ear condition, measurements were made in quiet of hearing thresholds for frequencies between 0.25 kHz and 8 kHz, duration and frequency difference limens, and word recognition. Hearing thresholds and word recognition were also measured in a background of impulsive cable swager noise. The E-A-R foam plug provided the highest and the E-A-R HI-FI plug, the lowest attenuation. The Bilsom Viking and Peltor muffs were virtually identical and midway between. An additional 10 dB of sound reduction was realized at 0.25 kHz with ANR. The masking effect of the noise on hearing threshold decreased with an increase in attenuation. None of the devices compromised either duration or frequency discrimination. Word recognition in noise improved in normal listeners when protectors were worn. For the impaired subjects, word recognition with poor contextual cues decreased with an increase in sound attenuation, in both quiet and noise. Like older normal listeners, their scores were relatively higher with ANR.

[1]  C. Giguere,et al.  Auditory perception with level-dependent hearing protectors. The effects of age and hearing loss. , 1993, Scandinavian audiology.

[2]  B A Schneider,et al.  Gap detection and the precedence effect in young and old adults. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Robert C. Bilger,et al.  Standardization of a Test of Speech Perception in Noise , 1984 .

[4]  S. Abel,et al.  Outer ear canal shape and its relation to the effectiveness of sound attenuating earplugs. , 1990, The Journal of otolaryngology.

[5]  A D Musicant,et al.  The influence of pinnae-based spectral cues on sound localization. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  A. Suter,et al.  Real-ear attenuation of earmuffs in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired individuals. , 1990, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  J D Durrant,et al.  Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms. , 1993, American journal of audiology.

[8]  Wouter A. Dreschler,et al.  Relations between psychophysical data and speech perception for hearing‐impaired subjects. II , 1980 .

[9]  H Kunov,et al.  Signal detection in industrial noise: effects of noise exposure history, hearing loss, and the use of ear protection. , 1985, Scandinavian audiology.

[10]  E. König,et al.  Pitch discrimination and age. , 1957 .

[11]  P W Alberti,et al.  Auditory detection, discrimination and speech processing in ageing, noise-sensitive and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1990, Scandinavian audiology.

[12]  Donald C. Gasaway Hearing conservation: A practical manual and guide , 1985 .

[13]  J Zera,et al.  Comparison between subjective and objective measures of active hearing protector and communication headset attenuation. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  S M Abel,et al.  Sound localization: effects of reverberation time, speaker array, stimulus frequency, and stimulus rise/decay. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Wayne W. Daniel,et al.  Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences , 1974 .

[16]  P W Alberti,et al.  Speech intelligibility in noise: effects of fluency and hearing protector type. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Christian Giguère,et al.  A multi-purpose facility for research on hearing protection , 1990 .

[18]  R. Freyman,et al.  Psychometric functions for frequency discrimination from listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  S. Abel,et al.  Sound localization. The interaction of aging, hearing loss and hearing protection. , 1996, Scandinavian audiology.

[20]  R. Iman,et al.  Rank Transformations as a Bridge between Parametric and Nonparametric Statistics , 1981 .

[21]  J W Horst Frequency discrimination of complex signals, frequency selectivity, and speech perception in hearing-impaired subjects. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  Daniel W. Gower,et al.  Speech Intelligibility and Protective Effectiveness of Selected Active Noise Reduction and Conventional Communications Headsets , 1994, Human factors.

[23]  D A Nelson,et al.  Frequency discrimination in regions of normal and impaired sensitivity. , 1982, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[24]  Indices of Communication Handicap in Mildly Hearing-Impaired Listeners , 1993 .

[25]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Age effects on duration discrimination with simple and complex stimuli. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  W. M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. , 1979, Journal of speech and hearing research.