Nontraditional hearing protection devices are intended to improve the audibility of auditory stimuli in noisy environments. However, when tested in controlled laboratory settings, such benefits are not always apparent. The characteristics of active noise reduction, amplitude-sensitive, and other augmented HPDs are briefly described. Next, the results of past research are discussed, as are the reasons why such results are not always as expected. Finally, methodological issues encountered when conducting auditory detection studies using nontraditional hearing protection will be addressed, including choice of noise spectra, workload, and psychophysical methods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbelS. M.SpencerD. L. (1997). Active noise reduction versus conventional hearing protection: relative benefits for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Scandinavian Audiology, 26(3), 155–167.
2.
ANSI (1989). American national standard methods for measuring the intelligibility of speech over communications systems, ANSI S3.2-1989. New York: American National Standards Institute.
3.
ANSI (1995). Microphone-in-real-ear and acoustical test fixture methods for the measurement of insertion loss of circumaural hearing protection devices, ANSI S12.42-1995.New York: American National Standards Institute, Inc.
4.
ANSI (1997). Methods for measuring the real-ear attenuation of hearing protectors, ANSI S12.6-1997.New York: American National Standards Institute, Inc.
5.
BergerE. H. (1986). Methods of measuring the attenuation of hearing protection devices. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 79(6), 1655–1687.
6.
BergerE. H. (1991). Flat-response, moderate attenuation, and level dependent HPDs: how they work and what they can do for you. Spectrum, 8(suppl. 1), 17.
7.
CasaliJ. G.BergerE. H. (1996). Technology advancements in hearing protection circa 1995: Active noise reduction, frequency/amplitude-sensitivity, and uniform attenuation. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 57, 175–185.
8.
CasaliJ. G.RobinsonG. S. (1994). Narrow-band digital active noise reduction in a siren-cancelling headset: Real ear and acoustic manikin insertion loss. Noise Control Engineering Journal, 42(3), 101–115.
9.
CasaliJ. G.WrightW. H. (1995). Do amplitude-sensitive hearing protectors improve detectibility of vehicle backup alarms in noise? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting (pp. 994–998). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
10.
ChristianE. V.RobinsonG. S.CasaliJ. G. (1999). Detectability of signals in noise while wearing active and passive hearing protectors-psychoacoustic research for Bose Corporation (Audio Lab Rpt. No. 7/23/99-1-HP, ISE Dept. Rpt. No. 9901). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Auditory Systems Laboratory.
11.
DenenbergJ. N.ClaybaughD. J. (1993). A selective noise canceling headset for use in emergency vehicles, Institute of Noise Control Engineering Journal/Japan, 17(2).
12.
GowerD. W.CasaliJ. G. (1994). Speech intelligibility and protective effectiveness of selected active noise reduction and conventional communications headsets. Human Factors, 36(2), 350–367.
13.
ISO (1989). Simplified method for the measurement of insertion loss of ear-muff type hearing protectors for quality inspection purposes, ISO 4869-3.Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
14.
ISO (1990). Subjective method for the measurement of sound attenuation, ISO 4869-1.Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
15.
SAE (1978). Performance, test, and application criteria for electronically operated backup alarm devices. ANSI/SAE J994b-1978. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
16.
SteenekenH. J. M.LanghoutG. (1985). Application of active noise reduction for hearing protection and speech intelligibility improvement (Report No. IZF 1985-7). Soesterberg, Netherlands: Institute for Perception.
17.
SuterA. H. (1989). The effects of hearing protectors on speech communication and the perception of warning signals (Technical Memorandum 2-89). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratory.
18.
JohnsonD. W.PerezA. E. (1980). Impact of Siren Noise on Paramedic Drivers and on the Environment, In Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the National Association of Noise Control Officials, (NANCO), Ft. Walton Beach, FL.
