Literature DB >> 28413349

Comment on 'Are some people suffering as a result of increasing mass exposure of the public to ultrasound in air?'

T G Leighton1.   

Abstract

A number of queries regarding the paper 'Are some people suffering as a result of increasing mass exposure of the public to ultrasound in air?' (Leighton 2016 Proc. R. Soc. A472, 20150624 (doi:10.1098/rspa.2015.0624)) have been sent in from readers, almost all based around some or all of a small set of questions. These can be grouped into issues of engineering, human factors and timeliness. Those issues (represented by the most typical wording used in queries) and my responses are summarized in this comment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  audiology; bioeffects; guidelines; hearing; ultrasonics; ultrasound

Year:  2017        PMID： 28413349      PMCID： PMC5378247          DOI： 10.1098/rspa.2016.0828

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Math Phys Eng Sci        ISSN： 1364-5021            Impact factor:   2.704


  10 in total

1.  Acoustic intensity, impedance and reflection coefficient in the human ear canal.

Authors:  B L Farmer-Fedor; R D Rabbitt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  How can humans, in air, hear sound generated underwater (and can goldfish hear their owners talking)?

Authors:  T G Leighton
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  WFUMB Symposium on Safety of Ultrasound in Medicine. Conclusions and recommendations on thermal and non-thermal mechanisms for biological effects of ultrasound. Kloster-Banz, Germany. 14-19 April, 1996. World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.998

4.  Comparison of nine methods to estimate ear-canal stimulus levels.

Authors:  Natalie N Souza; Sumitrajit Dhar; Stephen T Neely; Jonathan H Siegel
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Composite speech spectrum for hearing and gain prescriptions.

Authors:  R M Cox; J N Moore
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1988-03

6.  Extended high-frequency (9-20 kHz) audiometry reference thresholds in 645 healthy subjects.

Authors:  A Rodríguez Valiente; A Trinidad; J R García Berrocal; C Górriz; R Ramírez Camacho
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 2.117

Review 7.  The effects of industrial airborne ultrasound on humans.

Authors:  W I Acton
Journal:  Ultrasonics       Date:  1974-05       Impact factor: 2.890

8.  Interim guidelines on limits of human exposure to airborne ultrasound. International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee of the International Radiation Protection Association.

Authors: 
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  1984-04       Impact factor: 1.316

Review 9.  Exposure to industrial ultrasound: hazards, appraisal and control.

Authors:  W I Acton
Journal:  J Soc Occup Med       Date:  1983-07

Review 10.  Are some people suffering as a result of increasing mass exposure of the public to ultrasound in air?

Authors:  T G Leighton
Journal:  Proc Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.704
  10 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  Review of Audiovestibular Symptoms Following Exposure to Acoustic and Electromagnetic Energy Outside Conventional Human Hearing.

Authors:  Rory J Lubner; Neil S Kondamuri; Renata M Knoll; Bryan K Ward; Philip D Littlefield; Derek Rodgers; Kalil G Abdullah; Aaron K Remenschneider; Elliott D Kozin
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 4.003
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.