Communication in Noise with Acoustic and Electronic Hearing Protection Devices

Plyler, Patrick N.; Klumpp, Micah L.

doi:10.1055/s-0040-1715736

Cited by 4 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The summarized results of the reviewed studies according to the PICOS criteria are displayed in Table 3 . The participants included individuals with both normal hearing [ 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ] and hearing loss [ 3 , 5 , 26 ]. Specifically, Smalt et al reported on one single individual with a threshold of 30 dB HL in one ear [ 3 ] and Abel et al had 24 older adults with hearing loss [ 5 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effectiveness of Hearing Protection Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Kwak

Han

2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To prevent intensive noise exposure in advance and be safely controlled during such exposure, hearing protection devices (HPDs) have been widely used by workers. The present study evaluates the effectiveness of these HPDs, partitioned into three different outcomes, such as sound attenuation, sound localization, and speech perception. Seven electronic journal databases were used to search for published articles from 2000 to 2021. Based on inclusion criteria, 20 articles were chosen and then analyzed. For a systematic review and meta-analysis, standardized mean differences (SMDs) and effect size were calculated using a random-effect model. The funnel plot and Egger’s regression analysis were conducted to assess the risk of bias. From the overall results of the included 20 articles, we found that the HPD function performed significantly well for their users (SMDs: 0.457, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.034–0.881, p < 0.05). Specifically, a subgroup analysis showed a meaningful difference in sound attenuation (SMDs: 1.080, 95% CI: 0.167–1.993, p < 0.05) when to wear and not to wear HPDs, but indicated no significance between the groups for sound localization (SMDs: 0.177, 95% CI: 0.540–0.894, p = 0.628) and speech perception (SMDs: 0.366, 95% CI: −0.100–1.086, p = 0.103). The HPDs work well for their originally designated purposes without interfering to find the location of the sound sources and for talking between the workers. Taking into account various factors, such as the characteristics of the users, selection of appropriate types, and fitting methods for wearing in different circumstances, seems to be necessary for a reliable systematic analysis in terms of offering the most useful information to the workers.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effectiveness of Hearing Protection Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Kwak

Han

2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although passive noise reduction HPDs which have a low noise reduction rating (NRR) showed increased speech intelligibility in the presence of background noise [11], active noise reduction HPDs provided substantial bene ts for speech recognition performance, especially for the hearingimpaired users [28]. Plyler and Klumpp also suggested that active noise reduction HPDs may be bene cial for individuals with sensorineural hearing loss [21]. Further considering the characteristics and requirements of users who would be recommended and/or mandated for HPDs, Manning et al reported on the bene ts of bone-conduction HPDs for tinnitus patients [29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The summarized results of the reviewed studies according to the PICOS criteria are displayed in Table 3. The participants included individuals with both normal hearing [4,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] and hearing loss [3,5,28]. Speci cally, Smalt et al reported on one single individual with a threshold of 30 dB HL in one ear [3] and Abel et al had 24 older adults with hearing loss [5].…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of age, most of the studies included individuals who were young adults. For example, nineteen of the twenty studies recruited young adults only [6,11,12,20,21], young and middle-aged adults [3,4,[8][9][10][22][23][24][25][26][27], and young and old aged adults [5,7,28]. Only one study provided no information about the age of their subjects [29].…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, in the study by Simpson et al, types of HPDs for earplugs, earmuffs, and a combination of earplugs and earmuffs [26] were compared. On the other hand, fourteen of twenty studies compared two conditions for when to wear and not to wear HPDs by using various scenarios of use, such as earplug only [3,6,9,11,12,21,22,24], earmuffs only [5,7,8,10], earplugs and/or earmuffs [25,23,20,4,27,28], earplugs with earmuffs [26], and headsets [29].…”

Section: Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effectiveness of Hearing Protection Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Kwak

Han

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To prevent intensive noise exposure in advance and be safely controlled during such exposure, hearing protection devices (HPDs) have widely been used for workers. The present study evaluates the effectiveness of these HPDs, partitioned into three different outcomes, such as sound attenuation, sound localization, and speech perception. Methods: For thus systematic review and meta-analysis, standardized mean differences (SMDs) and effect size were calculated using a random-effect model. Seven electronic journal databases were used to search published articles from 2000 to 2020. Based on inclusion criteria, 20 articles were chosen and then analyzed. Results: Overall, the HPD function performed significantly well for their users (SMDs: 0.457, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.034-0.881, p< 0.05). Specifically, a subgroup analysis showed a meaningful difference in sound attenuation (SMDs: 1.080, 95% CI: 0.167-1.993, p< 0.05) when to wear and not to wear HPDs, but indicated no significance between the groups for sound localization (SMDs: 0.177, 95% CI: 0.540-0.894, p = 0.628) and speech perception (SMDs: 0.366, 95% CI: -0.100 -1.086, p = 0.103). Conclusions: The HPDs work well for their originally designated purposes without interfering to find the location of the sound sources and for talking between workers. In a further study, various factors, such as characteristics of the users, selection of appropriate types, and fitting methods for wearing in different circumstances should be differenciated in terms of offering the most useful infomation to the workers.

show abstract

Estimating the Performance of Sound Restoration Hearing Protectors by Using the Speech Intelligibility Index

Azman

Yantek

2010

Volume 13: Sound, Vibration and Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite advances in engineering noise controls and the use of administrative controls, miners are still dependent on hearing protection devices for prevention of noise-induced hearing loss. However, miners often raise concerns about the audibility of spoken communication when wearing conventional hearing protectors. Electronic technologies that selectively process and restore sounds from outside of hearing protectors have been suggested as a partial remedy to the audibility problem. To assess the potential benefits of this technology for miners, NIOSH tested the impact of nine electronic sound restoration hearing protectors on speech intelligibility in selected mining background noises. Because of the number of devices and potential settings of those devices, it was necessary to narrow the choices before conducting human subject testing. This was done by testing the nine devices on an acoustic test fixture (ATF) to acquire one-third-octave-band data, and then calculating the speech intelligibility index (SII) to determine estimates of performance across device, noise and setting. The estimates of speech intelligibility obtained with the SII are highly correlated with the intelligibility of speech under adverse listening conditions such as noise, reverberation, and filtering. The results of fixture based testing indicate that performance varies little between most devices, with few showing exceptionally good or poor estimated speech intelligibility. The most significant differences in estimated performance using the devices were between the different noise sources used, regardless of device or setting. The findings of this research were used to select the devices and settings for subsequent human subject based speech intelligibility testing. The human subject testing results largely concurred with the findings from the acoustic test fixture testing and calculation of speech intelligibility index. Specifically, variations in background noise led to the greatest differences in speech intelligibility.

show abstract

Communication in Noise with Acoustic and Electronic Hearing Protection Devices

Cited by 4 publications

References 10 publications

The Effectiveness of Hearing Protection Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Effectiveness of Hearing Protection Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Effectiveness of Hearing Protection Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Estimating the Performance of Sound Restoration Hearing Protectors by Using the Speech Intelligibility Index

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About