Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7776/ASK.2013.32.5.423

Effects of Hearing Protection Methods and Noise Directions on Bone-Conduction Sensitivity  

Han, Woojae (Division of Speech Pathology and Audiology, College of Natural Sciences, Hallym University Research Institute of Audiology and Speech Pathology, Hallym University)
Yu, Jyaehyoung (Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Hallym University Graduate School)
Publication Information
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of Korea / v.32, no.5, 2013 , pp. 423-429 More about this Journal
Abstract
The present study aimed to find the most sensitive placement of the skull to perceive speech through the bone vibrator in various protection methods while being exposed to noise. Twenty young normal-hearing adults (10 male and 10 female) participated in the study. As stimulus, Korean spondee words were presented via one of five skull locations (i.e., jaw angle, condyle, temple, mastoid, and vertex), while the participants wore one of four protection methods (i.e., ear form, ear plug, ear muff, and ear form and muff together) against white noise in one of four noise directions (i.e., 0, 90, 180, 270 degrees). The results showed: 1) there was a significant difference among the five skull locations with condyle being the most sensitive placement; 2) there was a significant difference among the four protection methods, with the ear form plus ear muff condition (or dual protection) providing the lowest threshold; 3) when exposed to noise from 90 degrees, the significantly lowest threshold was found; 4) there was no significant difference in results by gender. The pattern of results suggests that the communicative condition via the condyle bone conduction and the dual protection of the air conduction under any noise direction might be ideal for preventing noise-induced hearing loss, although further studies should be undertaken in this area.
Keywords
Bone conduction hearing; Sensitivity placement on the head; Noise direction; Hearing protection;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 M. Mcbride, M. Hodges, and J. French, "Speech intelligibility differences of male and female vocal signals transmitted through bone conduction in background noise: Implications for voice communication headset design," Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 38, 1038-1044 (2008).   DOI   ScienceOn
2 B. N. Walker and R. M.. Stanley, "Threshold of audibility for bone-conduction headsets,"Proceedings of ICAD 05- Eleventh Meeting of the International Conference on Auditory Display, Limerick, Ireland, July 6-9 (2005).
3 E. H. Berger, R. W. Kieper, and D. Gauger, "Hearing protection: Surpassing the limits to attenuation imposed by the bone-conduction pathways," J. Acoust. Soc. Am.114, 1955 (2003).   DOI   ScienceOn
4 J. B. F. Van-Erp and B. P. Self, "Introduction to tactile displays in military environments," In Tactile Displays for Orientation, Navigation and Communication in Air, Sea, and Land Environments, NATO RTO meeting, Nueilly-sur-Seine, (2008).
5 S. Cho, D. Lim, K. Lee, H. Han, and J. Lee, "Development of Korean standard bisyllabic word list for adults used in speech recognition threshold test," (in Korean), Audiology, 4, 28-36 (2008).
6 W. Han and J. Yu, "Bone-conduction sensitivity along with static force, location, and stimulus," (in Korean), Audiology, 8, 16-23 (2012).
7 R. G. Lomax and L. H. Debbie Statistical concepts: A second course, 3rd Ed. (Routledge Academic: NY, 2007).
8 R. Neitzel and N. Seixas, "The effectiveness of hearing protection among construction workers," J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2, 227-238 (2005).   DOI   ScienceOn
9 C. Porschmann, "Influences of bone conduction and air conduction on the sound of one's own voice," Acta Acoustica, 86, 1038-1045 (2000).
10 S. C. Griffin, R. Neitzel, W. E. Daniell and N. S. Seixas, "Indicators of hearing protection use: Self-report and research observation," J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 6, 639-647 (2009).   DOI   ScienceOn
11 M. McBride, T. Letowski and P. Tran, "Bone conduction reception: Head sensitivity mapping," Ergonomics, 51, 702-718 (2008).   DOI   ScienceOn
12 R. C. Beattie and R. A. Smiarowski, "Bone-conduction speech: Intelligibility functions and threshold force levels for spondees," Am. J. Otol. 3, 109-115 (1981).
13 A. Konings, L. V. Laer, and G. V. Camp, "Genetic studies on noise-induced hearing loss: A review," Ear Hear. 30,151-159 (2009).   DOI   ScienceOn
14 J. D. Chen and J. Y. Tsai, "Hearing loss among workers at an oil refinery in Taiwan," Arch. Environ. Health. 58, 55-58 (2003).   DOI
15 D. I. Nelson, R. Y. Nelson, M. C. Concha-Barrientos, and M. Fingerhut, "The global burden of occupational noise- induced hearing loss," Am. J. Ind. Med. 48, 446-458 (2005).   DOI   ScienceOn
16 D. McBride, J. Gilbert, B. Baber, M. Macky, P. Larkin, Z. L. Zhang, and T. Skaler, "Assessment of occupational noiseinduced hearing loss for ACC A practical guide for otolaryngologists," Accident Compensation Corporation (2011).
17 H. O. Park, C. S. Sim, J. K. Kwon, K. S. Kim, Y. J. Kwon, N. J. Kim, M. S. Seo, and J. H. Lee, "Effects of workplace noise and hearing protection devices on worker's speech intelligibility," Korean J. Occup. Environ. Med. 22, 154-165 (2010).
18 T. C. Morata, A. C. Fiorini, F. M. Fischer, E. F. Krieg, L.Grozzoli, and S. Colacippo, "Factors affecting the use of hearing protectors in a population of printing workers," Noise Health, 4, 25-32 (2001).
19 J. S. Helmkamp, "Why workers do not use hearing protection?," Occup. Health Saf. 55, 52 (1986).