There are clinical implications associated with knowing when the occlusion effect (OE) must be accounted for during bone conduction (BC) testing because spurious results can occur when errors are made in this regard. The amount of OE produced when insert earphones (IEs) are used varies in the literature; thus, further investigation is warranted.The purpose of this project was to determine the OE during BC threshold measurements under the following occluding conditions used clinically: when using partial insertion (PI) versus full insertion (FI) depth and when occluding one versus both ears.A descriptive within-subjects design was used in this study.Twenty-two adults with mean four-frequency pure tone averages of 24 dB HL, aged 40–83 yr, participated.BC thresholds were obtained at 250, 500, and 1000 Hz under seven conditions: (1) both ears unoccluded, (2) left ear occluded with PI, (3) right ear occluded with PI, (4) both ears occluded with PI, (5) left ear occluded with FI, (6) right ear occluded with FI, (7) both ears occluded with FI. For PI, one half of the length of the IE was beyond the opening of the ear canal. For FI, the lateral edge of the foam insert was flush with the entrance to the ear canal.Mean OEs were compared with previously published data. In addition, variability in the data was examined using frequency distribution plots as well as cumulative frequency and percentile values.Mean OEs of 5–13 dB were present in all but the FI condition at 1000 Hz where the OE was <3 dB. Differences between PI and FI conditions were present at each frequency measured, irrespective of whether one or both ears were occluded. The shifts in threshold were consistently more prevalent and greater for the PI than the FI conditions overall. Mean differences between the one-ear and both-ears conditions were not clinically significant. Clinically significant variability in the data was noted, except when comparing the one-ear versus both-ears conditions.Occluding the ear during initial BC measurements may artificially improve the thresholds and create or exaggerate an air-bone gap. Thus, initial BC testing should be performed unoccluded at 250, 500, and 1000 Hz. There is a need to account for the OE even when the IE is flush with the ear canal to avoid insufficient masking.

Issues related to law enforcement interactions with individuals with disabilities, communication impairments, and/or limited English language proficiency can have deleterious effects due to possible communication breakdowns. These populations are significantly more likely to be victims of a crime and are more likely to have interactions with law enforcement officers than those without disabilities. Difficulties may be encountered due to limited training and resources available to law enforcement and a lack of public awareness on the topic. This article calls upon professionals in communication sciences and disorders to raise awareness among the patients/clients and families they serve and calls on law enforcement to provide trainings, education, and exposure to various de-escalation techniques to support officers dealing with these vulnerable populations.

Purpose Sensitivity to sounds and atypical reactions to sensory input by individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been reported in the literature. In response to this sensitivity, some individuals use ear protection devices (EPDs) such as noise-canceling headphones, earplugs, or earmuffs to attenuate the perceived unpleasant sounds. Given the communication deficits often noted in this population and the essential role of hearing in speech and language development, the impact of wearing EPDs to attenuate sound needs to be explored. The purpose of this study was to obtain information from various stakeholders regarding their opinions about use of EPDs in individuals with ASD and perceived benefits and possible concerns of EPD use. Method A survey was constructed to assess the opinions of speech-language pathologists, audiologists, teachers, and graduate students about EPDs among individuals with ASD. A total of 255 professionals and graduate students completed the survey. Results The vast majority of respondents indicated a level of awareness of EPDs within this population. Regarding observed use of such devices, the majority of participants (66%) reported observing individuals with ASD using EPDs. The most commonly used devices observed were headphones (91%), followed by earmuffs (44%) and earplugs (33%). Respondents who had experience recommending and/or using EPDs with individuals with ASD were asked to report on major reasons why the devices were used and the perceived benefits and possible negative effects. Conclusions There appears to be uncertainty among various stakeholders of the benefits and possible negative effects of EPD use by individuals with ASD. Additionally, there is a dearth of research in this area, and the necessity for specific guidelines for recommending and monitoring EPD use is indicated.

No abstract

No abstract