Literature DB >> 11206150

Isolating the auditory system from acoustic noise during functional magnetic resonance imaging: examination of noise conduction through the ear canal, head, and body.

M E Ravicz1, J R Melcher.   

Abstract

Approaches were examined for reducing acoustic noise levels heard by subjects during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a technique for localizing brain activation in humans. Specifically, it was examined whether a device for isolating the head and ear canal from sound (a "helmet") could add to the isolation provided by conventional hearing protection devices (i.e., earmuffs and earplugs). Both subjective attenuation (the difference in hearing threshold with versus without isolation devices in place) and objective attenuation (difference in ear-canal sound pressure) were measured. In the frequency range of the most intense fMRI noise (1-1.4 kHz), a helmet, earmuffs, and earplugs used together attenuated perceived sound by 55-63 dB, whereas the attenuation provided by the conventional devices alone was substantially less: 30-37 dB for earmuffs, 25-28 dB for earplugs, and 39-41 dB for earmuffs and earplugs used together. The data enabled the clarification of the relative importance of ear canal, head, and body conduction routes to the cochlea under different conditions: At low frequencies (< or =500 Hz), the ear canal was the dominant route of sound conduction to the cochlea for all of the device combinations considered. At higher frequencies (>500 Hz), the ear canal was the dominant route when either earmuffs or earplugs were worn. However, the dominant route of sound conduction was through the head when both earmuffs and earplugs were worn, through both ear canal and body when a helmet and earmuffs were worn, and through the body when a helmet, earmuffs, and earplugs were worn. It is estimated that a helmet, earmuffs, and earplugs together will reduce the most intense fMRI noise levels experienced by a subject to 60-65 dB SPL. Even greater reductions in noise should be achievable by isolating the body from the surrounding noise field.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11206150      PMCID: PMC1829318          DOI: 10.1121/1.1326083

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  21 in total

1.  Acoustic noise during functional magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  M E Ravicz; J R Melcher; N Y Kiang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Low-noise chambers for auditory research.

Authors:  I L Vér; R M Brown; N Y Kiang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1975-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Mechanical parameters of hearing by bone conduction.

Authors:  S M Khanna; J Tonndorf; J E Queller
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1976-07       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Acoustic analysis of gradient-coil noise in MR imaging.

Authors:  R Hurwitz; S R Lane; R A Bell; M N Brant-Zawadzki
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  The use of acoustical test fixtures for the measurement of hearing protector attenuation. Part II: Modeling the external ear, simulating bone conduction, and comparing test fixture and real-ear data.

Authors:  J Schroeter; C Poesselt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Pure-tone, third-octave, and octave-band attenuation of ear protectors.

Authors:  R Waugh
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1974-12       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Transformation of sound pressure level from the free field to the eardrum in the horizontal plane.

Authors:  E A Shaw
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1974-12       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 8.  Methods of measuring the attenuation of hearing protection devices.

Authors:  E H Berger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Influence of physiological noise and the occlusion effect on the measurement of real-ear attenuation at threshold.

Authors:  E H Berger; J E Kerivan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1983-07       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Earcanal pressure generated by a free sound field.

Authors:  E A Shaw
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1966-03       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  32 in total

Review 1.  Acoustic noise concerns in functional magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Adriaan Moelker; Peter M T Pattynama
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  Detection and quantification of a wide range of fMRI temporal responses using a physiologically-motivated basis set.

Authors:  Michael P Harms; Jennifer R Melcher
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Question/statement judgments: an fMRI study of intonation processing.

Authors:  Colin P Doherty; W Caroline West; Laura C Dilley; Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel; David Caplan
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Assessment of temporal state-dependent interactions between auditory fMRI responses to desired and undesired acoustic sources.

Authors:  O Olulade; S Hu; J Gonzalez-Castillo; G G Tamer; W-M Luh; J L Ulmer; T M Talavage
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-03-21       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Extraction of overt verbal response from the acoustic noise in a functional magnetic resonance imaging scan by use of segmented active noise cancellation.

Authors:  Kwan-Jin Jung; Parikshit Prasad; Yulin Qin; John R Anderson
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.668

6.  fMRI-acoustic noise alters brain activation during working memory tasks.

Authors:  D Tomasi; E C Caparelli; L Chang; T Ernst
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2005-08-15       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Effects of sound bandwidth on fMRI activation in human auditory brainstem nuclei.

Authors:  Monica L Hawley; Jennifer R Melcher; Barbara C Fullerton
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Effects of sound level on fMRI activation in human brainstem, thalamic and cortical centers.

Authors:  Irina S Sigalovsky; Jennifer R Melcher
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-04-27       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Cortical FMRI activation to sequences of tones alternating in frequency: relationship to perceived rate and streaming.

Authors:  E Courtenay Wilson; Jennifer R Melcher; Christophe Micheyl; Alexander Gutschalk; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-01-03       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Implications for Bone Conduction Mechanisms from Thresholds of Post Radical Mastoidectomy and Subtotal Petrosectomy Patients.

Authors:  Michal Kaufmann Yehezkely; Golda Grinblat; Miriam Geal Dor; Shai Chordekar; Ronen Perez; Cahtia Adelman; Haim Sohmer
Journal:  J Int Adv Otol       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 1.017

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.