scholarly journals Situational Awareness: The Effect of Stimulus Type and Hearing Protection on Sound Localization

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (21) ◽  
pp. 7044
Author(s):  
Leah Fostick ◽  
Nir Fink
Keyword(s):  
Sound Localization ◽  
Situational Awareness ◽  
Mirror Image ◽  
Spoken Word ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Speech Stimuli ◽  
Protection Devices ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Image Reversal ◽  
Reversal Errors

 The purpose of the current study was to test sound localization of a spoken word, rarely studied in the context of localization, compared to pink noise and a gunshot, while taking into account the source position and the effect of different hearing protection devices (HPDs) used by the listener. Ninety participants were divided into three groups using different HPDs. Participants were tested twice, under with- and no-HPD conditions, and were requested to localize the different stimuli that were delivered from one of eight speakers evenly distributed around them (starting from 22.5°). Localization of the word stimulus was more difficult than that of the other stimuli. HPD usage resulted in a larger mean root-mean-square error (RMSE) and increased mirror image reversal errors for all stimuli. In addition, HPD usage increased the mean RMSE and mirror image reversal errors for stimuli delivered from the front and back, more than for stimuli delivered from the left and right. HPDs affect localization, both due to attenuation and to limitation of pinnae cues when using earmuffs. Difficulty localizing the spoken word should be considered when assessing auditory functionality and should be further investigated to include HPDs with different attenuation spectra and levels, and to further types of speech stimuli. 

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (21) ◽  
pp. 11693
Author(s):  
Chanbeom Kwak ◽  
Woojae Han
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Sound Attenuation ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Protection Devices

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.

Predicting the effect of hearing-protection devices on horizontal-plane sound localization

2021 ◽  
Vol 150 (4) ◽  
pp. A340-A340
Author(s):  
Nathaniel J. Spencer ◽  
Zachariah N. Ennis ◽  
Natalie Jackson ◽  
Brian D. Simpson ◽  
Eric R. Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Sound Localization ◽  
Horizontal Plane ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Plane Sound ◽  
Protection Devices

Mirror Image Reversal: Is what we See what we Present?

Perception ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 869-876 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reg C Morris
Keyword(s):  
Mental Rotation ◽  
Mirror Image ◽  
Object Image ◽  
Physical Explanation ◽  
Image Match ◽  
Multiple Factors ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Image Reversal

Many psychological explanations have been advanced to explain left—right reversal in mirror images, but Gregory and Haig have each proposed a physical explanation for the reversal: the first is based upon the physical rotation used to present the surface of the object to the mirror, and the second on the classical optics of reflection. These physical explanations are considered together with an explanation based on object symmetry. The apparent reversal of directional coordinates (eg left and right) that occurs in the mirror images of most objects is distinguished from reversals achieved by physical or mental rotation. It is also distinguished from the object—image match that can be achieved by mental or physical rotation of some symmetrical objects. It is concluded that the left—right reversal is not specifically optical, but is determined by multiple factors, including object symmetry, the conventional and gravitational positioning of top and bottom and back and front, and our greater familiarity with right—left than with top—bottom or back—front reversals.

Sound Localization with Hearing Protectors: Performance and Head Motion Analysis in a Visual Search Task

2002 ◽  
Vol 46 (17) ◽  
pp. 1618-1622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian D. Simpson ◽  
Robert S. Bolia ◽  
Richard L McKinley ◽  
Douglas S Brungart
Keyword(s):  
Visual Search ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Search Task ◽  
Visual Search Task ◽  
Visual Target ◽  
Head Motion ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Motion Data ◽  
Auditory Cue ◽  
Protection Devices

The effects of hearing protection on sound localization were examined in the context of an auditory-cued visual search task. Participants were required to locate a visual target in a field of 5, 20, or 50 visual distractors randomly distributed throughout ±180° of azimuth and from approximately −70° to +90° in elevation. Four conditions were examined in which an auditory cue, spatially co-located with the visual target, was presented. In these conditions, participants wore (1) earplugs, (2) earmuffs, (3) both earplugs and earmuffs, or (4) no hearing protection. In addition, a control condition was examined in which no auditory cue was provided. Visual search times and head motion data suggest that the degree to which localization cues are disrupted with hearing protection devices varies with the type of device worn. Moreover, when both earplugs and earmuffs are worn, search times approach those found with no auditory cue, suggesting that sound localization cues are nearly completely eliminated in this condition.

Measuring the External Ear for Hearing Protection Device Design

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 4-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Amin Mououdi ◽  
Jafar Akbari ◽  
Maryam Mohammadi Khoshoei
Keyword(s):  
Measured Data ◽  
Anthropometric Measurements ◽  
Optimal Threshold ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
External Ear ◽  
Protection Device ◽  
Device Design ◽  
Protection Devices ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
The Mean

In this study we aimed to obtain anthropometric measurements of external ear dimensions for designing hearing protection devices (HPDs). We measured 3 dimensions of left and right ears of 153 operational workers and compared the measured data with earplugs (Eps) and earmuffs (Ems). The mean (± SD) earhole length, pinna length, and pinna width for the subjects were 14.6 (± 2.5), 62.8 (± 5.0), and 34.8 (± 4.2) mm, respectively. The mean longitudinal and transverse diameters of the Ems for the ear were close to the 95th and 97.5th percentile, respectively. The Ems met the optimal threshold of ergonomic design; however, the Eps required a better design.

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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chanbeom Kwak ◽  
Woojae Han
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Sound Attenuation ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Protection Devices

Abstract 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.

The Effect of Hearing-Protection Devices on Auditory Situational Awareness and Listening Effort

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-94
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Smalt ◽  
Paul T. Calamia ◽  
Andrew P. Dumas ◽  
Joseph P. Perricone ◽  
Tejash Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Situational Awareness ◽  
Hearing Protection ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Protection Devices
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document