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

References

• Abel S.M. 2008. Barriers to hearing conservation programs in combat arms occupations. Aviat Space Environ Med, 79, 591–598.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abel S.M., Alberti P.W., Haythornthwaite C. & Riko K. 1982. Speech intelligibility in noise: Effects of fluency and hearing protector type. J Acoust Soc Am, 71, 708–715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abel S.M., Kunov H., Pichora-Fuller M.K. & Alberti P.W. 1985. Signal detection in industrial noise: Effects of noise exposure history, hearing loss, and the use of ear protection. Scand Audiol, 14, 161–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANSI/ASA S3.4-2007 R2012. American National Standard Methods for the Computation of Loudness of Steady Sounds. New York, American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI/ASA S3.5-1997 R2012. American National Standard Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York, American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI S3.19-1974. American National Standard Method for the Measurement of Real-Ear Protection of Hearing Protectors and Physical Attenuation of Earmuffs. New York, American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• ANSI/ASA S12.68-2007 R2012. American National Standard Methods of Estimating Effective A-Weighted Sound Pressure Levels When Hearing Protectors are worn. New York, American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Berger E.H. 1991. Flat-response, moderate-attenuation, and level-dependent hpds: how they work, and what they can do for you. NHCA Spectrum, 8(Suppl 1), 17
   Google Scholar
• Berger E.H. 2000. Hearing protection devices. Chapter 10. In: E.H. Berger, L.H. Royster, J.D. Royster, D.P. Driscoll, & M. Layne (eds.), The Noise Manual, Fifth Edition, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax VA, pp. 379–454.
   Google Scholar
• Berger E.H. 2014. Relationship of insertion depth to real-ear attenuation for roll-down foam earplugs. NHCA Spectrum, 31 (Suppl 1), 9.
   Google Scholar
• Berger E.H. & Kieper R.W. 2014. Evaluation of variability in real-ear attenuation testing using a unique database – 35 years of data from a single laboratory. J Acoust Soc Am, 136(4 Pt 2), 2134.
   Google Scholar
• Bouserhal R.E., Macdonald E., Falk T.H. & Voix J. 2016. Variations in voice level and fundamental frequency with changing background noise level and talker-to-listener distance while wearing hearing protectors: a pilot study. Int J Audiol, 55. [epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1122240.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Casali J.G. 2010a. Electronic augmentations in hearing protection technology circa 2010 including active noise reduction, electronically-modulated sound transmission, and tactical communications devices: Review of design, testing, and research. Int J Acoust Vibr, 15, 168–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casali J.G. 2010b. Passive augmentations in hearing protection technology circa 2010 including flat-attenuation, passive level-dependent, passive wave resonance, passive adjustable attenuation, adjustable-fit devices: Review of design, testing and research. Int J Acoust Vibr, 15, 187–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CSA Z94.2-14. Hearing Protection Devices – Performance, Selection, Care, and Use. Toronto: Canadian Standards Association.
   Google Scholar
• EN 458: 2004. Hearing Protectors – Recommendations for Selection, Use, Care and Maintenance – Guidance Document. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• Giguère C. & Berger E.H. 2014. Exploration of flat hearing protector attenuation and sound detection in noise. 168th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Indianapolis IN, October 27-31. J Acoust Soc Am, 136(4 Pt 2), 2165–2166.
   Google Scholar
• Giguère C. & Berger E.H. 2015. Modeling the interaction between the hearing protector attenuation function and the hearing loss profile on sound detection in noise. Proceedings of Euronoise 2015, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 31 May-3 June, 6 pages.
   Google Scholar
• Giguère C., Laroche C., Vaillancourt V. & Soli S.D. 2010. Modelling speech intelligibility in the noisy workplace for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners using hearing protectors. Int J Acoust Vibr, 15, 156–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giguère C., Laroche C. & Vaillancourt V. 2015. The interaction of hearing loss and level-dependent hearing protection on speech recognition in noise. Int J Audiol, 54, S9–S18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giguère C., Vaillancourt V. & Laroche C. 2014. The interaction of hearing loss and hearing protection on speech recognition in noise. NHCA Spectrum, 31(2), 11–17
   Google Scholar
• Hiselius P. 2000. A new generation: uniform attenuation hearing protectors offer superior communication and user acceptance for normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Occup Health Saf, 69(3), 50–54.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hormann H., Lazarus-Mainka G., Schubeius M. & Lazarus H. 1984. The effect of noise and the wearing of ear protectors on verbal communication. Noise Control Eng J, 23, 69–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISO 1999: 2013. Acoustics – Estimation of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 4869-2: 1994. Acoustics – Hearing Protectors – Part 2: Estimation of Effective A-Weighted Sound Pressure Levels When Hearing Protectors Are Worn. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 7731: 2003. Ergonomics – Danger Signals for Public and Work Areas – Auditory Danger Signals. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 9612: 1996. Acoustics – Determination of Occupational Noise Exposure – Engineering Method. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• Killion M.C. 2012. Factors influencing use of hearing protection by trumpet players. Trends Amplif, 16, 173–178.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kohata S., Inoue J., Sakuma T., Nakagawa T., Kawanami, S. & Horie, S. 2015. Evaluation of the hearing of Japanese speech while wearing earplugs in a noisy environment. Proceedings of Inter-Noise 2015. San Francisco, CA. 6 pages.
   Google Scholar
• Lazarus H. 2005. Signal recognition and hearing protectors with normal and impaired hearing. Int J Occup Saf Ergon, 11, 233–250.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Letowski T. & Mcgee L. 1993. Detection of warble tones in wideband noise with and without hearing protection devices. Ann Occup Hyg, 37, 607–614.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Letowski T., Vaughan N., Good S., Lynch D. & Myers L. 1998. Speech Communication with Flat-Attenuation Hearing Protectors. In V.C. Goodwin & D.C. Stevenson (eds.), Proceedings of Inter-Noise 98. Poughkeepsie, NY: Noise Control Foundation. 4 pages.
   Google Scholar
• Liedtke M. 2002. Specifying a general criterion for hearing protectors with the aim of ensuring with the aim of ensuring good acoustic perception. Noise Vibr Worldwide, 33(7), 19–23.
   Google Scholar
• Liedtke M. 2009. German criteria for selection of hearing protectors in the interest of good signal audibility. Int J Occup Saf Ergon, 15, 163–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindeman H.E. 1976. Speech intelligibility and the use of hearing protectors. Audiology, 15, 348–356.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morata T.C., Themann C.L., Randolph R.F., Verbsky B.L., Byrne D.C. & Reeves E.R. 2005. Working in noise with a hearing loss: perceptions from workers, supervisors, and hearing conservation program managers. Ear Hear, 26, 529–545.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niquette P. 2006. Hearing protection for musicians. Hear Rev, 13(3), 52–58.
   Google Scholar
• Niquette P. 2007. Uniform attenuation hearing protection devices. Hear Rev, 14(3), 42–45.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson G.S. & Casali J.G. 1995. Audibility of reverse alarms under hearing protectors for normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Ergonomics, 38, 2181–2299.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson G.S. & Casali, J.G. 2000. Speech communication and signal detection in noise. Chapter 14. In: E.H. Berger, L.H. Royster, J.D. Royster, D.P. Driscoll & M. Layne (eds.). The Noise Manual, Fifth Edition, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax VA, pp. 567–600.
   Google Scholar
• Themann C., Suter A.H. & Stephenson M.R. 2013. National Research Agenda for the prevention of occupational hearing loss – Part 1. Semin Hear, 34, 145–207.
   Google Scholar
• Tufts J.B. & Frank T. 2003. Speech production in noise with and without hearing protection. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 1069–1080.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaillancourt V., Nélisse H., Laroche C., Giguère C., Boutin J. & Laferrière P. 2013. Comparison of sound propagation and perception of three types of backup alarms with regards to worker safety. Noise Health, 15, 420–436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbsky B.L. 2002. Effects of conventional passive earmuffs, uniformly attenuating passive earmuffs, and hearing aids on speech intelligibility in noise. Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University.
   Google Scholar
• Vermiglio A.J. 2008. The American English hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol, 47, 386–387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilde G. & Humes L.E. 1990. Application of the articulation index to the speech recognition of normal and impaired listeners wearing hearing protection. J Acoust Soc Am, 87, 1192–1199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkins P.A. & Martin A.M. 1987. Hearing protection and warning sounds in industry - A review. Appl Acoust, 21, 267–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng Y., Giguère C., Laroche C., Sabourin C., Gagné A., et al. 2007. A psychoacoustical model for specifying the level and spectrum of acoustic warning signals in the workplace. J Occup Environ Hyg, 4, 87–98.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar