Comments on "What is silence? Therefore, what is sound?" - A discussion of Brownian motion and the threshold of hearing (L).

This Letter to the editor is a comment on an article in the JASA Forum by William Yost. It pertains to a reference he made to prior work that indicates the possibility that the human threshold of hearing in the most sensitive region may be limited by Brownian motion of the air molecules, also called thermal noise. I present additional data and my own observations that support this contention.

Acoustic trauma from continuous noise: Minimum exposures, issues in clinical trial design, and comments on magnetic resonance imaging exposures.

Acoustic trauma (AT) is permanent hearing loss after a single noise exposure. A few human cases resulting from continuous, i.e., nonimpulsive noise, have been reported as reviewed by Ward [(1991). "Hearing loss from noise and music," presented at Audio Engineering Society, New York, October 4-8]. This paper updates that review by examining 11 cases in nine reports, from 1950 to 2006, with the intention of determining minimum exposures that may cause AT, including the potential risk of exposure to noise from magnetic resonance imaging machines. Diffuse-field related levels above 120 dBA for 10 s or more, or above 130 dBA for 2-3 s (values well above OSHA's unprotected exposure limits), can lead to AT. These cases appear to represent a susceptible fraction of the population, because much more intense exposures (e.g., 130 dBA for 32 min) have been tolerated by groups of volunteers who suffered only temporary threshold shifts. AT from continuous noise is unlikely to occur in OSHA-compliant hearing conservation programs, and probably rare enough in the general civilian population that clinical trials of drugs aimed at treating it are unlikely to be practical. AT from impulse noise, such as gunfire, which is specifically not the topic of the current work, is more amenable to clinical trials, especially in military settings.

Spectral analysis of hearing protector impulsive insertion loss.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise the performance of hearing protection devices (HPDs) in impulsive-noise conditions and to compare various protection metrics between impulsive and steady-state noise sources with different characteristics. DESIGN: HPDs were measured per the impulsive test methods of ANSI/ASA S12.42- 2010 . Protectors were measured with impulses generated by both an acoustic shock tube and an AR-15 rifle. The measured data were analysed for impulse peak insertion loss (IPIL) and impulsive spectral insertion loss (ISIL). These impulsive measurements were compared to insertion loss measured with steady-state noise and with real-ear attenuation at threshold (REAT). STUDY SAMPLE: Tested HPDs included a foam earplug, a level-dependent earplug and an electronic sound-restoration earmuff. RESULTS: IPIL for a given protector varied between measurements with the two impulse noise sources, but ISIL agreed between the two sources. The level-dependent earplug demonstrated level-dependent effects both in IPIL and ISIL. Steady-state insertion loss and REAT measurements tended to provide a conservative estimate of the impulsively-measured attenuation. CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of IPIL depend strongly on the source used to measure them, especially for HPDs with less attenuation at low frequencies. ISIL provides an alternative measurement of impulse protection and appears to be a more complete description of an HPD's performance.

Speech recognition in noise under hearing protection: A computational study of the combined effects of hearing loss and hearing protector attenuation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of hearing protection on speech recognition in noise. DESIGN: Computational study using a speech recognition model that was previously empirically validated. STUDY SAMPLE: Recognition scores were calculated in unprotected and protected conditions for four sets of hearing protector attenuation functions in two different noises, for three simulated hearing profiles illustrative of those anticipated in the noisy workplace. RESULTS: For a normal-hearing profile, recognition scores were not sensitive to the slope of the attenuation function and the overall amount of noise reduction, but protected conditions provided a small but consistent 7-12% benefit compared to unprotected listening. For profiles simulating hearing loss, recognition scores were much more sensitive to the attenuation function. Substantial drops of 30% or more were found compared to unprotected listening in some conditions of steep attenuation slopes and large noise reductions. Attenuation functions modelled from real hearing protectors with nearly-flat attenuation yielded a benefit compared to unprotected listening for all hearing profiles studied. These findings were true in both noises. CONCLUSIONS: Limiting the slope of the hearing protector attenuation function and/or the overall amount of noise reduction is useful and warranted for workers with hearing loss to prevent adverse effects on speech recognition.

Measurement of impulse peak insertion loss from two acoustic test fixtures and four hearing protector conditions with an acoustic shock tube.

Impulse peak insertion loss (IPIL) was studied with two acoustic test fixtures and four hearing protector conditions at the E-A-RCAL Laboratory. IPIL is the difference between the maximum estimated pressure for the open-ear condition and the maximum pressure measured when a hearing protector is placed on an acoustic test fixture (ATF). Two models of an ATF manufactured by the French-German Research Institute of Saint-Louis (ISL) were evaluated with high-level acoustic impulses created by an acoustic shock tube at levels of 134 decibels (dB), 150 dB, and 168 dB. The fixtures were identical except that the E-A-RCAL ISL fixture had ear canals that were 3 mm longer than the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) ISL fixture. Four hearing protection conditions were tested: Combat Arms earplug with the valve open, ETYPlugs ® earplug, TacticalPro headset, and a dual-protector ETYPlugs earplug with TacticalPro earmuff. The IPILs measured for the E-A-RCAL fixture were 1.4 dB greater than the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) ISL ATF. For the E-A-RCAL ISL ATF, the left ear IPIL was 2.0 dB greater than the right ear IPIL. For the NIOSH ATF, the right ear IPIL was 0.3 dB greater than the left ear IPIL.

Results of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency interlaboratory comparison of American National Standards Institute S12.6-1997 Methods A and B.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Environmental Protection Agency sponsored the completion of an interlaboratory study to compare two fitting protocols specified by ANSI S12.6-1997 (R2002) [(2002). American National Standard Methods for the Measuring Real-Ear Attenuation of Hearing Protectors, American National Standards Institute, New York]. Six hearing protection devices (two earmuffs, foam, premolded, custom-molded earplugs, and canal-caps) were tested in six laboratories using the experimenter-supervised, Method A, and (naive) subject-fit, Method B, protocols with 24 subjects per laboratory. Within-subject, between-subject, and between-laboratory standard deviations were determined for individual frequencies and A-weighted attenuations. The differences for the within-subject standard deviations were not statistically significant between Methods A and B. Using between-subject standard deviations from Method A, 3-12 subjects would be required to identify 6-dB differences between attenuation distributions. Whereas using between-subject standard deviations from Method B, 5-19 subjects would be required to identify 6-dB differences in attenuation distributions of a product tested within the same laboratory. However, the between-laboratory standard deviations for Method B were -0.1 to 3.0 dB less than the Method A results. These differences resulted in considerably more subjects being required to identify statistically significant differences between laboratories for Method A (12-132 subjects) than for Method B (9-28 subjects).

Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimation of the field attenuation of hearing protection devices: sample size necessary to provide acceptable reproducibility.

The mandate of ASA Working Group S12/WG11 has been to develop "laboratory and/or field procedure(s) that yield useful estimates of field performance" of hearing protection devices (HPDs). A real-ear attenuation at threshold procedure was selected, devised, tested for one earmuff and three earplugs via an interlaboratory study involving five laboratories and 147 subjects, and incorporated into a new standard that was approved in 1997 [Royster et al., "Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimating the field attenuation of hearing protection devices. Part I. Research of Working Group 11, Accredited Standards Committee S 12, Noise," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99, 1506-1526; ANSI, S12.6-1997, "American National Standard method for measuring real-ear attenuation of hearing protectors" (American National Standards Institute, New York, 1997)]. The subject-fit methodology of ANSI S12.6-1997 relies upon listeners who are audiometrically proficient, but inexperienced in the use of HPDs. Whenever a new method is adopted, it is important to know the effects of variability on the power of the measurements. In evaluation of protector noise reduction determined by experimenter-fit, informed-user-fit, and subject-fit methods, interlaboratory reproducibility was found to be best for the subject-fit method. Formulas were derived for determining the minimum detectable difference between attenuation measurements and for determining the number of subjects necessary to achieve a selected level of precision. For a precision of 6 dB, the study found that the minimum number of subjects was 4 for the Bilsom UF-1 earmuff, 10 for the E.A.R Classic earplug, 31 for the Willson EP100 earplug, and 22 for the PlasMed V-51R earplug.

Hearing protection: surpassing the limits to attenuation imposed by the bone-conduction pathways.

With louder and louder weapon systems being developed and military personnel being exposed to steady noise levels approaching and sometimes exceeding 150 dB, a growing interest in greater amounts of hearing protection is evident. When the need for communications is included in the equation, the situation is even more extreme. New initiatives are underway to design improved hearing protection, including active noise reduction (ANR) earplugs and perhaps even active cancellation of head-borne vibration. With that in mind it may be useful to explore the limits to attenuation, and whether they can be approached with existing technology. Data on the noise reduction achievable with high-attenuation foam earplugs, as a function of insertion depth, will be reported. Previous studies will be reviewed that provide indications of the bone-conduction (BC) limits to attenuation that, in terms of mean values, range from 40 to 60 dB across the frequencies from 125 Hz to 8 kHz. Additionally, new research on the effects of a flight helmet on the BC limits, as well as the potential attenuation from deeply inserted passive foam earplugs, worn with passive earmuffs, or with active-noise reduction (ANR) earmuffs, will be examined. The data demonstrate that gains in attenuation exceeding 10 dB above the head-not-covered limits can be achieved if the head is effectively shielded from acoustical stimulation.