ANSI Update

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Frank
Keyword(s):  
Ambient Noise ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Computational Method ◽  
Octave Band ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Test Room ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Audiometric Test

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifies maximum permissible ambient noise levels (MPANLs) allowed in an audiometric test room to ensure that hearing thresholds obtained down to 0-dB HL will not be elevated due to masking by ambient noise. MPANLs were originally specified in 1960 and have been revised in 1977, 1991, and most recently in 1999. The purpose of this report is to offer an overview by providing a historical perspective of the MPANLs recently specified by ANSI (ANSI S3.1-1999), the rationale for revising the MPANLs, the new computational method used for determining the 1999 MPANLs, the ANSI S3.1-1999 octave and one-third octave band MPANLs, and information concerning compliance with the new MPANLs.

scholarly journals Ambient noise levels in audiometric test rooms

1993 ◽  
Vol 93 (4) ◽  
pp. 2406-2406
Author(s):  
Tom Frank ◽  
Dennis L. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Ambient Noise ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Audiometric Test

Ambient Noise Levels in Industrial Audiometric Test Rooms

AIHAJ ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 433-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Frank ◽  
Dennis L. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Ambient Noise ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Audiometric Test

Hearing Protection With Integrated In-Ear Dosimetry: A Noise Dose Study

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa A. Theis ◽  
Hilary L. Gallagher ◽  
Richard L. McKinley ◽  
Valerie S. Bjorn
Keyword(s):  
Noise Exposure ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Octave Band ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Exposure Limits ◽  
Group Data ◽  
Dose Study ◽  
Hearing Protector ◽  
Naval Air Systems Command

Military personnel working in high noise environments can be exposed to continuous noise levels up to 150 dB. United States (US) Department of Defense (DoD) Hearing Conservation Programs (HCPs) [1–3] set safe noise exposure limits to reduce the risk for noise induced hearing loss. These daily noise exposure limits were based on ambient noise levels and the duration of time spent in that noise environment. Current dosimeters, worn on the lapel of personnel and at least one system worn under a hearing protector, were designed to measure noise levels and calculate noise dose, but do not provide a validated measure of noise dose external to or under a hearing protector. Noise dose under hearing protectors can be estimated by subtracting the real ear attenuation (REAT) data, collected in accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S12.6 [4], at each octave band from the ambient octave band noise. This procedure gives accurate results for group data, but does not account for individual variations in effective attenuation. To address this issue, the US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) led the development of ship suitable in-ear dosimetry integrated into a hearing protector, and co-sponsored an effort executed by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) to calibrate in-ear noise dose readings. This was accomplished by conducting human noise exposure experiments, with and without hearing protection, which calculated noise dose from temporary threshold shifts (TTS) in hearing. Ten subjects participated in the study. Noise levels were 91, 94, and 97 dB for up to 2 hrs, 1 hr, and 30 minutes respectively. These exposure levels were well within US DoD safe noise exposure guidelines (DoD HCP) [1–3]. Data will be presented describing the open and occluded (protected) ear TTS response to noise dose achieved by subjects in the experiment. Preliminary findings indicate that human subject data is extremely important in developing and validating calibration factors for any type of noise dosimeter but is especially important for in-ear dosimetry. Results from this study demonstrated that the REAT noise dose estimations and the in-ear dosimetry earplugs consistently overestimated the effective noise dose received by subjects. However, more than 10 subjects are required to improve the confidence level of the estimated calibration factor.

Ambient Noise Levels in Audiometric Test Rooms Used for Clinical Audiometry

1993 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 414-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Frank ◽  
Dennis L. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Ambient Noise ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Audiometric Test

Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms

1993 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Frank ◽  
John D. Durrant ◽  
Jean M. Lovrinic
Keyword(s):  
Ambient Noise ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Audiometric Test

The Acoustic Test Environment for Hearing Testing

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (09) ◽  
pp. 784-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. Margolis ◽  
Brandon Madsen
Keyword(s):  
Ambient Noise ◽  
Acoustic Measurements ◽  
Hearing Tests ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Test Environment ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Audiometric Test ◽  
Attenuation Characteristics ◽  
Made In

Background: Audiology clinics traditionally employ expensive, prefabricated sound rooms to create an environment that is sufficiently quiet for accurate hearing tests. There is seldom any analysis of the need for or benefit from such enclosures. There may be less expensive methods that would decrease the cost of and increase access to hearing testing. Purpose: This report provides information concerning the need for and effectiveness of sound rooms and an analysis of the audiometric test ranges for various earphone/room combinations. Research Design: Acoustic measurements made in four rooms were analyzed with the attenuation provided by various earphone designs to determine the maximum permissible ambient noise levels and the corresponding audiometric test ranges. Study Sample: The measurements and calculations were performed with four test rooms and five earphone designs. Data Collection and Analysis: Ambient noise levels and earphone attenuation characteristics were used to calculate the noise levels that reach the ear. Those were compared to the maximum permissible ambient noise levels that are provided in ANSI S3.1-1999 or calculated from measured attenuation levels. These measurements were used to calculate testable ranges for each room/earphone combination. Results: The various room/earphone combinations resulted in minimum test levels that ranged from −10 to 20 dB HL at various test frequencies. Conclusions: When the actual benefits of expensive prefabricated sound rooms are assessed based on the range of hearing levels that can be tested, the effectiveness of that approach becomes highly questionable. Less expensive methods based on planning the clinic space, use of inexpensive sound treatments, and selecting an appropriate earphone can be effective in almost any space that would be used for hearing testing.

AUTOMATED SCREENING AUDIOMETRY IN THE DIGITAL AGE: EXPLORING UHEAR™ AND ITS USE IN A RESOURCE-STRICKEN DEVELOPING COUNTRY

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katijah Khoza-Shangase ◽  
Lisa Kassner
Keyword(s):  
Ambient Noise ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Ipod Touch ◽  
School Aged Children ◽  
Significant Statistical Difference ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Automated Screening ◽  
Air Conduction

Background: The current study aimed to determine the accuracy of UHear™, a downloadable audiometer on to an iPod Touch©, when compared with conventional audiometry.Methods: Participants were enrolled primary school scholars. A total number of eighty-six participants (172 ears) were included. Of these eighty-six participants, forty-four were female and forty-two were male; with the age ranging from 8 years to 10 years (mean age, 9.0 years). Each participant underwent two audiological screening evaluations; one by means of conventional audiometry and the other by means of UHear™. Otoscopy and tympanometry was performed on each participant to determine status of their outer and middle ear before each participant undergoing pure tone air conduction screening by means of conventional audiometer and UHear™. The lowest audible hearing thresholds from each participant were obtained at conventional frequencies.Results: Using the Paired t-test, it was determined that there was a significant statistical difference between hearing screening thresholds obtained from conventional audiometry and UHear™. The screening thresholds obtained from UHear™ were significantly elevated (worse) in comparison to conventional audiometry. The difference in thresholds may be attributed to differences in transducers used, ambient noise levels and lack of calibration of UHear™.Conclusion: The UHear™ is not as accurate as conventional audiometry in determining hearing thresholds during screening of school-aged children. Caution needs to be exercised when using such measures and research evidence needs to be established before they can be endorsed and used with the general public.

Influence of Wind-produced Noise on Orientation in the Sole (Solea solea)

1994 ◽  
Vol 51 (6) ◽  
pp. 1258-1264 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. P. Lagardère ◽  
M. L. Bégout ◽  
J. Y. Lafaye ◽  
J. P. Villotte
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Distribution ◽  
Ambient Noise ◽  
Sound Intensity ◽  
Weather Conditions ◽  
Fish Populations ◽  
Positioning System ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Orientation Behaviour ◽  
Solea Solea ◽  
Swimming Trajectories

Sole (Solea solea), telemetered in an enclosure using an acoustic positioning system, changed their swimming trajectories and orientation behaviour as a function of wind strength and direction. Monitoring of the spatial variation in both wind-generated currents and noise spectra in the enclosure indicates that these behavioural changes correspond to patterns in the spatial distribution of noise and to sound intensity. Thus, our observations indicate that sole perceives and reacts to horizontal variability in ambient noise levels. Such behaviour may be important in determining movements of fish populations at sea during poor weather conditions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document