Chapter 14: Speech Communications and Signal Detection in Noise

Robinson, Guner S.; Casali, John G.; Berger, Elliott H.; Royster, Larry H.; Driscoll, Dennis P.; Royster, Julia Doswell; Layne, Martha

doi:10.3320/978-1-931504-02-7.567

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ambient noise interference with communication appears as a main plausible pathway. [ 21 27 28 29 30 ] The effect of hearing protection devices (HPDs) on communication interference is inconclusive. [ 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ] Other plausible pathways include habituation and reduced vigilance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noise as an explanatory factor in work-related fatality reports

Deshaies

Martin

Belzile³

et al. 2015

Noise Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Noise exposure in the workplace is a common reality in Québec, Canada as it is elsewhere. However, the extent to which noise acts as a causal or contributive factor in industrial work-related accidents has not been studied thoroughly despite its plausibility. This article aims to describe the importance or potential importance, during investigations looking into the specific causes of each work-related fatal accident, of noise as an explanatory factor. The written information contained in the accident reports pertaining to contextual and technical elements were used.The study used multiple case qualitative content analysis. This descriptive study was based on the content analysis of the 788 reports from the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail du Québec [Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB)] investigating the fatal work-related accidents between 1990 and 2005. The study was descriptive (number and percentages). Noise was explicitly stated as one of the explanatory factors for the fatal outcome in 2.2% (17/788) of the fatal accidents, particularly when the work involved vehicular movement or the need to communicate between workers. Noise was not typically considered a unique cause in the accident, notably because the investigators considered that the accident would have probably occurred due to other risk factors (for example, disregard of safety rules, shortcomings in work methods, and inadequate training). Noise is an important risk factor when communication is involved in work. Since noise is ubiquitous and may also interfere with vigilance and other risk factors for accidents, it may be a much more important contributing factor to accidents than is currently recognized.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noise as an explanatory factor in work-related fatality reports

Deshaies

Martin

Belzile³

et al. 2015

Noise Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The scope of practice of occupational audiologists extends beyond the scope of typical clinical audiology. Occupational audiologists should be in the forefront of advising companies about the auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on the health of the exposed individuals 26) , as well as the effects of noise on communication and job performance 27) . Currently, the services offered by occupational audiologists in the mines in SA are not aligned with the scope of practice defined by ASHA 8) .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of occupational noise induced hearing loss in the mining sector in South Africa: Where are the audiologists?

Moroe

Khoza-Shangase

2018

Journal of Occupational Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study was conducted to explore the scope of practice for occupational audiologists in the mining industry and the audiologists' involvement in hearing conservation programmes in South African mines. Additionally, this study investigated the mining industry's role in the audiologists' involvement, and assessed the audiologists' levels of preparedness for working in occupational audiology. Methods: In-depth, qualitative telephone and face-to face interviews were conducted with seven occupational audiologists involved in the management of occupational, noise-induced hearing loss (ONIHL) in the South African mining sector. Snowball sampling was utilized to recruit possible participants for this study. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: The following themes were identified: scope-context misalignment, juniorization of the experts, audiologists are important... but for what?, and limited training in occupational audiology. Conclusions: Our evidence highlights important gaps in HCPs in South Africa. The fact that the audiologists responsible for the management of ONIHL are only minimally and peripherally involved may play a significant role in the lack of progress reported in the management of ONIHL in the South African mining sector.

show abstract

“…The fi rst group was offi ce workers, which we expected to have occupational noise exposures of ~60 dBA. [12] The second group was day care workers, with expected exposures of ~70 dBA. [13,14] The fi nal group was fl ight technicians employed by the Swedish Air Force, anticipated to have exposures of ~90 dBA [15,16] Our target sample was 15 workers per group (n = 45).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of occupational and nonoccupational noise exposures in Sweden

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was conducted to evaluate noise exposures and the contributions of occupational and nonoccupational activities among three groups of Swedish workers (office workers, day care workers, and military flight technicians), and to evaluate risk factors for elevated hearing threshold levels. Forty-five subjects were recruited across the three groups. Each subject completed a risk factor questionnaire along with Békésy audiometry at frequencies between 125 and 8000 Hz. Subjects also wore a noise dosimeter continuously for 1 week, and documented their occupational and nonoccupational activities using a time-activity log. Subjects in all groups completed >7400 h of dosimetry, and had weekly exposures between 76 and 81 dBA. Day care workers had the highest daily exposures, and flight technicians had the highest weekly exposures. Most daily and weekly exposures exceeded the 70 dBA exposure limit recommended for prevention of any hearing loss. Subjects' perceptions of their exposures generally agreed well with measured noise levels. Among office workers, exposures were predominately nonoccupational, while among flight technicians nonoccupational and occupational activities contributed roughly equally, and among day care workers occupational exposures were dominant. Extreme exposures and cumulative noise exposure were associated with an increased risk of hearing threshold levels >10 dB hearing level. Effective hearing loss prevention programs may be needed in occupations not historically considered to be at high risk of noise-induced hearing loss (e.g., day care workers). Prevention efforts need to address nonoccupational exposures as well as occupational exposures, as nonoccupational activities may present the dominant risk of noise-induced hearing loss for some workers.

show abstract

Chapter 14: Speech Communications and Signal Detection in Noise

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Noise as an explanatory factor in work-related fatality reports

Noise as an explanatory factor in work-related fatality reports

Management of occupational noise induced hearing loss in the mining sector in South Africa: Where are the audiologists?

A comparison of occupational and nonoccupational noise exposures in Sweden

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About