Verbal communication in MR environments: effect of MR system acoustic noise on speech understanding.

PURPOSE To assess the masking effect of magnetic resonance (MR)-related acoustic noise and the effect of passive hearing protection on speech understanding. MATERIALS AND METHODS Acoustic recordings were made at 1.5 T at patient and operator (interventionalist in the MR suite) locations for relevant pulse sequences. In an audiologic laboratory, speech-to-noise ratios (STNRs) were determined, defined as the difference between the absolute sound pressure levels of MR noise and speech. The recorded noise of the MR sequences was played simultaneously with the recorded sentences at various intensities, and 15 healthy volunteers (seven women, eight men; median age, 27 years) repeated these sentences as accurately as possible. The STNR that corresponded with a 50% correct repetition was used as the measure for speech intelligibility. In addition, the effect of passive hearing protection on speech intelligibility was tested by using an earplug model. RESULTS Overall, speech understanding was reduced more at operator than at patient location. Most problematic were fast gradient-recalled-echo train and spiral k-space sequences. As the absolute sound pressure level of these sequences was approximately 100 dB at patient location, the vocal effort needed to attain 50% intelligibility was shouting (>77 dB). At operator location, less effort was required because of the lower sound pressure levels of the MR noise. Fast spoiled gradient-recalled-echo and echo-planar imaging sequences showed relatively favorable results with raised voice at operator location and loud speaking at patient location. The use of hearing protection slightly improved STNR. CONCLUSION At 1.5 T, the level of MR noise requires that large vocal effort is used, at the operator and especially at the patient location. Depending on the specific MR sequence used, loud speaking or shouting is needed to achieve adequate bidirectional communication with the patient. The wearing of earplugs improves speech intelligibility.

[1]  Tzi-Dar Chiueh,et al.  Active cancellation system of acoustic noise in MR imaging , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[2]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Adriaan Moelker,et al.  Relationship between magnetic field strength and magnetic-resonance-related acoustic noise levels , 2003, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[4]  R. Mallozzi,et al.  Making MRI quieter. , 2002, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[5]  Rauno Pääkkönen,et al.  Noise attenuation and proper insertion of earplugs into ear canals. , 2002, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[6]  R. Briggs,et al.  Influence of speech stimuli intensity on the activation of auditory cortex investigated with functional magnetic resonance imaging. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  T. Houtgast,et al.  Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  D. L. Spencer,et al.  Active noise reduction versus conventional hearing protection. Relative benefits for normal-hearing and impaired listeners. , 1997, Scandinavian audiology.

[9]  Steve C R Williams,et al.  Acoustic noise and functional magnetic resonance imaging: Current strategies and future prospects , 2002, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[10]  F G Shellock,et al.  Measurement of acoustic noise during MR imaging: evaluation of six "worst-case" pulse sequences. , 1994, Radiology.

[11]  D. Lim,et al.  Effects of the acoustic noise of the gradient systems on fMRI: A study on auditory, motor, and visual cortices , 1998, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[12]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[13]  Adriaan Moelker,et al.  Real-time modulation of acoustic gradient noise in interventional MRI , 2004 .

[14]  P. Bandettini,et al.  Functional MRI of brain activation induced by scanner acoustic noise , 1998, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[15]  L W Bartels,et al.  Endovascular interventional magnetic resonance imaging. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  J. Melcher,et al.  Isolating the auditory system from acoustic noise during functional magnetic resonance imaging: examination of noise conduction through the ear canal, head, and body. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Sander J. van Wijngaarden,et al.  Objective prediction of speech intelligibility at high ambient noise levels using the speech transmission index , 1999, EUROSPEECH.

[18]  Sharon M. Abel,et al.  Speech understanding in noise with earplugs and muffs in combination , 1999 .

[19]  R. Plomp A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[20]  A. M. Mimpen,et al.  Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  F G Shellock,et al.  Auditory noise associated with MR procedures: a review. , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[22]  J Huston,et al.  Magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0 Tesla: initial clinical experience. , 2001, Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI.

[23]  J. M. Festen,et al.  Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids. , 1984 .

[24]  Adriaan Moelker,et al.  Efficacy of passive acoustic screening: Implications for the design of imager and MR‐suite , 2003, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[25]  E Borg,et al.  Analysis of magnetic resonance imaging acoustic noise generated by a 4.7 T experimental system. , 2000, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[26]  G. Saunders,et al.  A test to measure subjective and objective speech intelligibility. , 2002, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[27]  T. Parrish,et al.  Functional MR imaging. , 1999, Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America.

[28]  A R Palmer,et al.  Sound‐Level Measurements and Calculations of Safe Noise Dosage During EPI at 3 T , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[29]  Ronald A J J Maas,et al.  Interventional MR imaging at 1.5 T: quantification of sound exposure. , 2002, Radiology.

[30]  T Houtgast,et al.  Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  O. Zafiris,et al.  The Effect of Sequence Repeat Time on Auditory Cortex Stimulation During Phonetic Discrimination , 1998, NeuroImage.