Electronic Earmuff Research Articles

Protecting the hearing-impaired worker: speech understanding with electronic hearing protection devices

Introduction: In many military and civilian occupations, the use of a hearing protection device (HPD) is required while working in noisy environments. When a worker has a pre-existing hearing loss, wearing traditional passive HPDs further impedes auditory communication. Our aim was to study speech understanding in noise with electronic HPDs under simulated hearing loss conditions to assess their effectiveness for use as hearing enhancement devices. Methods: Speech understanding was tested with 18 participants using the Speech Recognition in Noise Test (SPRINT). The three ear conditions were: unprotected, the wearing of an electronic earmuff (3M PELTOR Tactical 6–S), and the wearing of an electronic earplug (INVISIO V60 and an X5 headset). The two listener conditions were normal-hearing SPRINT, and simulated hearing loss SPRINT (SHL SPRINT). In the latter condition, the SPRINT audio files were digitally filtered to simulate a high-frequency hearing loss. Results: Participants obtained the highest scores with ears unprotected, especially in the SHL SPRINT condition. The external microphones of the electronic earmuff and earplug were found to have limited bandwidth, which could have reduced speech clarity and resulted in the low SPRINT scores. Discussion: The electronic HPDs did not improve speech understanding under simulated hearing loss conditions when compared to unprotected hearing. However, in noisy environments where HPDs are required, they provide a benefit over passive HPDs by reducing the risk of overprotection for the hearing-impaired worker.

Comparison of Speech Intelligibility Measures for An Electronic Amplifying Earmuff and An Identical Passive Attenuation Device

The purpose of this study was to identify any differences between speech intelligibility measures obtained with MineEars electronic earmuffs (ProEars, Westcliffe, CO, USA) and the Bilsom model 847 (Sperian Hearing Protection, San Diego, CA, USA), which is a conventional passive-attenuation earmuff. These two devices are closely related, since the MineEars device consisted of a Bilsom 847 earmuff with the addition of electronic amplification circuits. Intelligibility scores were obtained by conducting listening tests with 15 normal-hearing human subject volunteers wearing the earmuffs. The primary research objective was to determine whether speech understanding differs between the passive earmuffs and the electronic earmuffs (with the volume control set at three different positions) in a background of 90 dB(A) continuous noise. As expected, results showed that speech intelligibility increased with higher speech-to-noise ratios; however, the electronic earmuff with the volume control set at full-on performed worse than when it was set to off or the lowest on setting. This finding suggests that the maximum volume control setting for these electronic earmuffs may not provide any benefits in terms of increased speech intelligibility in the background noise condition that was tested. Other volume control settings would need to be evaluated for their ability to produce higher speech intelligibility scores. Additionally, since an extensive electro-acoustic evaluation of the electronic earmuff was not performed as a part of this study, the exact cause of the reduced intelligibility scores at full volume remains unknown.

Azimuthal auditory localization of gunshots in a realistic field environment: Effects of open-ear versus hearing protection-enhancement devices (HPEDs), military vehicle noise, and hearing impairment

Objective: A controlled field experiment was conducted to evaluate localization of suprathreshold gunshot reports (from blank cartridges) with four hearing protection-enhancement devices (HPEDs) in comparison to the open ear with ambient outdoor noise and in 82 dBA diesel military heavy truck noise. Design: Five measures of localization accuracy and response time for eight shooter positions in azimuth were measured. Study sample: Nine normal-hearing and four impaired-hearing participants were tested. Results: Statistical analysis showed worse accuracy and response time performance with the electronic earmuffs (Peltor Com-Tac II™ in full gain position) than with the other tested HPEDs (Etymotic EB 1 and EB 15 High-Fidelity Electronic BlastPLG™ electronic earplugs, both set to Lo gain positions; and 3M Single-Ended Combat Arms™ passive earplug in level-dependent, “open” position). Performance with all HPEDs was worse than that with the open ear, except on right-left confusions, in which the earmuff stood alone as worst, and in response time, for which the EB 1 was equivalent to the open ear. There was no significant main effect of noise on performance. Hearing impairment increased right-left confusions. Subjective ratings related to localization generally corroborated objective localization performance. Conclusions: None of the tested HPEDs preserved “normal” localization performance.

Auditory backup alarms: distance-at-first-detection via in-situ experimentation on alarm design and hearing protection effects

The purpose of this study was to assess normal hearing listeners' performance in detecting a stationary backup alarm signal and to quantify the linear distance at detection point. Detection distances for 12 participants with normal hearing were measured while they were fitted with 7 hearing protectors and while they were unoccluded (open ear). A standard (narrowband) backup alarm signal and a broadband (pulsed white noise) backup alarm signal from Brigade[1] were used. The method of limits, with distance as the physical measurement variable and threshold detection as the task, was employed to find at which distance the participant could first detect the backup alarms. A within-subject Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant main effect of the listening conditions on the detection distance in feet. Post hoc analyses indicated that the Bilsom L3HV conventional passive earmuff (at 1132.2 ft detection distance) was significantly poorer compared to all other HPDs and the open ear in detection distance achieved, and that there were no statistically-significant differences between the unoccluded ear (1652.3 ft), EB-15-Lo BlastPLGTM (1546.2 ft), EB-15-Hi BlastPLGTM (1543.4 ft), E-A-R/3M Combat ArmsTM earplug-nonlinear, level-dependent state (1507.8 ft), E-A-R/3M HiFiTM earplug (1497.7 ft), and Bilsom ImpactTM dichotic electronic earmuff (1567.2 ft). In addition, the E-A-R/3M Combat ArmsTM earplug-passive steady state resulted in significantly longer detection distances than only the open ear condition, at 1474.1 ft versus 1652.3 ft for the open ear. ANOVA also revealed a significant main effect of the backup alarm type on detection distance. The means were 1600.9 ft for the standard (narrowband) backup alarm signal, and a significantly closer 1379.4 ft was required for the Brigade broadband backup alarm signal. For on-ground workers, it is crucial to detect backup alarm signals as far away as possible rather than at close distances since this will provide them more time to react to approaching vehicles. The results of this study suggest that as the attenuation of the hearing protectors increases, precautions should be considered by safety professionals. This is because, as it was the case with the Bilsom passive earmuff and E-A-R/3M Combat ArmsTM earplug-passive steady state, high attenuation minimizes the detection distance and as a result on-foot workers will have less time to react to any approaching vehicle. The main effects of the type of backup alarm signal demonstrated a statistically-significant advantage of the standard backup alarm over the broadband backup alarm on detection distance in feet. The magnitude of the improvement produced by the standard backup alarm was 221.5 feet, a very large margin. For example, with a vehicle backing at 10 mph, the 221.5 ft decrease in detection distance with the Brigade alarm equates to the vehicle arriving 15 seconds sooner at the worker from the point at which its alarm was first heard.

Measurement of impulse peak insertion loss for four hearing protection devices in field conditions

Objective: In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed an impulse noise reduction rating (NRR) for hearing protection devices based upon the impulse peak insertion loss (IPIL) methods in the ANSI S12.42-2010 standard. This study tests the ANSI S12.42 methods with a range of hearing protection devices measured in field conditions. Design: The method utilizes an acoustic test fixture and three ranges for impulse levels: 130–134, 148–152, and 166–170 dB peak SPL. For this study, four different models of hearing protectors were tested: Bilsom 707 Impact II electronic earmuff, E·A·R Pod Express, E·A·R Combat Arms version 4, and the Etymotic Research, Inc. Electronic BlastPLG™ EB1. Study sample: Five samples of each protector were fitted on the fixture or inserted in the fixture's ear canal five times for each impulse level. Impulses were generated by a 0.223 caliber rifle. Results: The average IPILs increased with peak pressure and ranged between 20 and 38 dB. For some protectors, significant differences were observed across protector examples of the same model, and across insertions. Conclusions: The EPA's proposed methods provide consistent and reproducible results. The proposed impulse NRR rating should utilize the minimum and maximum protection percentiles as determined by the ANSI S12.42-2010 methods.

Comparison of speech intelligibility measures for an electronic amplifying earmuff and an identical passive attenuation device.

The purpose of this study was to identify any differences between speech intelligibility measures obtained with MineEars electronic earmuffs (ProEars, Westcliffe, CO, USA) and the Bilsom model 847 (Sperian Hearing Protection, San Diego, CA, USA), which is a conventional passive-attenuation earmuff. These two devices are closely related, since the MineEars device consisted of a Bilsom 847 earmuff with the addition of electronic amplification circuits. Intelligibility scores were obtained by conducting listening tests with 15 normal-hearing human subject volunteers wearing the earmuffs. The primary research objective was to determine whether speech understanding differs between the passive earmuffs and the electronic earmuffs (with the volume control set at three different positions) in a background of 90 dB(A) continuous noise. As expected, results showed that speech intelligibility increased with higher speech-to-noise ratios; however, the electronic earmuff with the volume control set at full-on performed worse than when it was set to off or the lowest on setting. This finding suggests that the maximum volume control setting for these electronic earmuffs may not provide any benefits in terms of increased speech intelligibility in the background noise condition that was tested. Other volume control settings would need to be evaluated for their ability to produce higher speech intelligibility scores. Additionally, since an extensive electro-acoustic evaluation of the electronic earmuff was not performed as a part of this study, the exact cause of the reduced intelligibility scores at full volume remains unknown.

Amplified Earmuffs

To determine how amplified earmuffs affect the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with hearing loss, and to determine how various brands of amplified earmuffs compare in terms of speech intelligibility and electroacoustic response. The Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) was used to measure the intelligibility of speech for 10 participants with hearing loss when they listened in a background of recorded industrial noise at 85 dBA. Participants listened with 3 different sets of amplified earmuffs (Peltor Tactical 7-S, Elvex COM 55, and Bilsom 707 Impact II), with a set of passive earmuffs (E-A-R Ultra 9000), and with ears unoccluded. Two measurements of sentence threshold were obtained under each of the 5 listening conditions. Gain was measured electroacoustically across a range of input levels and frequencies for each amplified earmuff. Electroacoustic measurements indicated that each electronic earmuff amplified at low input levels and attenuated at high input levels. However, gain characteristics varied greatly across devices. HINT sentence thresholds were not significantly different across the 5 listening conditions or across the 2 trials. Results suggest that each type of earmuff can be used to reduce the noise exposure of people with hearing loss without compromising their ability to understand speech.

The Effect of Various Hearing Protectors on Sound Localization in the Horizontal and Vertical Planes

Listeners were tested under free head/torso movement conditions, using a brief pulsed broadband noise signal presented from any 1 of 20 loudspeakers in two intersecting hemicircumferential arrays: one in the horizontal plane, one in the vertical. The listeners' task was to judge the whereabouts of each signal while listening in normal, open-ears conditions or while wearing various types of standard or electronic earmuffs or compressible foam earplugs. Results showed that listeners could accomplish the task successfully in normal (open-ear) conditions. Results using earplugs, nonelectronic earmuffs, and two types of dichotic (dual microphone) electronic earmuffs showed decrements in performance similar to each other. These decrements took the general form of loss of appreciation of the vertical plane and of front-rear differences in the horizontal plane. Lateral discrimination was blurred but otherwise intact. Of two diotic (single microphone) electronic earmuffs, one completely disrupted localization function and the other came close to it.