Musician earplugs: Appreciation and protection

Abstract

Recreational music exposure is a potential risk factor for noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). Augmented hearing protectors have been designed with modified attenuation characteristics to combine hearing protection and listening comfort. However, to date, only a few independent studies have assessed the performance of those augmented protectors in realistic exposure conditions. This study compares the listening experience and temporary effects on cochlear status with different types of earplugs after exposure to contemporary club music. Five different types of commercially available hearing protectors were worn, all commonly used during leisure-time music exposure. Four of them were augmented premolded earplugs and the fifth type was an inexpensive, standard earplug frequently distributed for free at music events. During five different test sessions of 30 min each, participants not professionally involved in music wore one particular type of protector. Contemporary club music was played at sound pressure levels (SPLs) representative of concerts and bars. After each listening session, a questionnaire on sound quality and general appreciation was completed. In addition, otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) were measured directly before and after music exposure. The reported appreciation clearly differed depending on the addressed characteristics and the specific earplug type. In this test group, the reported appreciation mainly depended on comfort and looks, while differences in sound quality were less noticeable. The changes in OAE amplitude before and after noise exposure were small in terms of clinical standards. Nevertheless, the observed temporary shifts differed systematically for the different types of hearing protectors, with two types of musician earplug showing a more systematic decline than the others. Further research with respect to actual use and achieved protection for real, unsupervised music exposure is warranted.

The effects of a hearing education program on recreational noise exposure, attitudes and beliefs toward noise, hearing loss, and hearing protector devices in young adults

“…However, it should be emphasized that premolded earplugs targeting music exposure are well appreciated but the objective attenuation depends on variation in the design of the earplug. [ 44 ] Thus, more efforts should be undertaken for the design, looks, marketing and packaging of HPDs targeting recreational noise exposure in young adults[ 44 ] as well as their availability at a relatively low cost.…”

Hearing in young adults. Part I: The effects of attitudes and beliefs toward noise, hearing loss, and hearing protector devices

“…Concerning the barriers against using HPDs, the comfort, appearance, and communication skills while using HPDs are found to be important;[ 48 ] therefore, the design, appearance, marketing, and packaging of HPDs should target young adults specifically. [ 49 ]…”

A critical review of the literature on comfort of hearing protection devices: definition of comfort and identification of its main attributes for earplug types

“…In the literature dedicated to HPD, the word "comfort" is generally employed to designate all aspects related to the mechanical contact between the HPD and the outer ear for earplugs or the circumaural and pinna for earmuffs (called "touch related non-acoustical" aspects in (Bockstael et al 2012)) leading to physical sensations which may prevent a correct and consistent HPD use (Abel 2008;Behar and Desormeaux 1986;Behar and Jackson 1987;Bhattacharya, Tripathi, and Kashyap 1993;Bockstael, De Bruyne, and Vinck 2011;Bockstael, Keppler, and Botteldooren 2015;Broughton 1995;Byrne et al 2011;Canetto 2009;Casali et al 1987;Damongeot 1977;Damongeot et al 1982;Du, Homma, and Saunders 2008;Edelson et al 2009;Epps and Casali 1985;Flugrath and Tuberville 1972;Grenell 1988;Groenewold et al 2014;Ivergård and McK. Nicholl 1976;Ivarsson, Toremalm, and Brühl 1990;Kusy 1991;Kusy 1996;Mauney and Casali 1990;Melamed et al 1996;Morata et al 2001;Mozo, Murphy, and Ribera 1995;Park and Casali 1991;Patel et al 2001;Samelli et al 2018;Smith, Monaco, and Lusk 2014;Spomer et al 2017;M.…”