Literature DB >> 14759024

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

William J Murphy1, John R Franks, Elliott H Berger, Alberto Behar, John G Casali, Christine Dixon-Ernst, Edward F Krieg, Ben T Mozo, Julia D Royster, Larry H Royster, Stephen D Simon, Carol Stephenson.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14759024     DOI: 10.1121/1.1633559

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


  5 in total

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

Authors:  William J Murphy; Gregory A Flamme; Deanna K Meinke; Jacob Sondergaard; Donald S Finan; James E Lankford; Amir Khan; Julia Vernon; Michael Stewart
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2011-12-19       Impact factor: 2.117

2.  Hearing protector fit testing with off-shore oil-rig inspectors in Louisiana and Texas.

Authors:  William J Murphy; Christa L Themann; Taichi K Murata
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  Inter-laboratory comparison of three earplug fit-test systems.

Authors:  David C Byrne; William J Murphy; Edward F Krieg; Robert M Ghent; Kevin L Michael; Earl W Stefanson; William A Ahroon
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 2.155

4.  Do hearing protectors protect hearing?

Authors:  Matthew R Groenewold; Elizabeth A Masterson; Christa L Themann; Rickie R Davis
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 2.214

5.  The insertion loss distribution function of an ear plug, and its implications for the ear plug acceptability.

Authors:  Paolo Lenzuni; Diego Annesi; Pietro Nataletti
Journal:  Noise Health       Date:  2020 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 0.867

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.