PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

E H Berger

Publications and source records attributed to E H Berger.

17 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

Dual protection.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Ear Protective Devices↗
PubMed1998

Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimating the field attenuation of hearing protection devices. Part III. The validity of using subject-fit data.

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 via an interlaboratory study, and incorporated into a draft standard that was approved in 1997 [J. D. Royster et at., "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 S12, Noise," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99, 1506-1526 (1996); ANSI S12.6-1997, "American National Standard Methods for Measuring Real-Ear Attenuation of Hearing Protectors" (American National Standards Institute, New York, 1997)]. The real-world estimation procedure utilizes a subject-fit methodology with listeners who are audiometrically proficient, but inexperienced in the use of HPDs. A key factor in the decision to utilize the subject-fit method was an evaluation of the representativeness of the laboratory data vis-à-vis attenuation values achieved by workers in practice. Twenty-two field studies were reviewed to develop a data base for comparison purposes. Results indicated that laboratory subject-fit attenuation values were typically equivalent to or greater than the field attenuation values, and yielded a better estimate of those values than did experimenter-fit or experimenter-supervised fit types of results. Recent data which are discussed in the paper, but which were not available at the time of the original analyses, confirm the findings.

Auditory Threshold↗
PubMed1996

Technology advancements in hearing protection circa 1995: active noise reduction, frequency/amplitude-sensitivity, and uniform attenuation.

Conventional hearing protection devices represent a mature technology that has been widely used since the late 1950s. When worn consistently and correctly such devices can provide suitable hearing protection in many, if not most noise-hazardous or aurally annoying situations. However, such devices have often been implicated in compromised auditory perception, degraded signal detection, and reduced speech communication abilities. In some instances this can create hazards for the wearer, or at the very least, resistance to use by those in need of hearing protection. Recent technological developments have been used to augment hearing protectors in an attempt to alleviate these problems for the user while providing adequate attenuation. Operational characteristics, design alternatives, performance data, and applications for active noise reduction, active sound transmission, frequency selectively, adjustable attenuation, amplitude sensitivity, and uniform attenuation features in hearing protectors are discussed, and recommendations are provided.

Acoustics↗
PubMed1989

Is it necessary to measure hearing protector attenuation at 3.15 and 6.3 kHz?

The real-ear attenuation data for 81 different hearing protectors were analyzed with respect to the errors that would arise if, instead of averaging the 1/3-octave-band results at 3.15 and 4 kHz and 6.3 and 8 kHz, respectively, the octave-band attenuation at 4 and 8 kHz was estimated from only the 1/3-octave-band data at those two frequencies. Errors as large as 3-4 dB were found to occur in rare instances, but more typically were in the range of 0.5-1.5 dB. However, in terms of computation of an overall noise reduction rating such as the NRR, the effect of excluding the 3.15- and 6.3-kHz data led to errors that averaged only 0.1 dB and never exceeded 0.3 dB, except in one instance, where the error was 0.6 dB. It was concluded that there is little value in measuring real-ear attenuation in a diffuse sound field at the frequencies of 3.15 and 6.3 kHz for applications in which hearing protector attenuation data are normally utilized.

Acoustic Stimulation↗
PubMed1989

Comparison of the noise attenuation of three audiometric earphones, with additional data on masking near threshold.

The noise-excluding properties of a standard supra-aural audiometric earphone, a widely used circumaural-supra-aural combination, and an insert earphone sealed to the ear with a vinyl foam eartip were measured in a diffuse-field room complying with ANSI S12.6-1984. Data on attenuation were obtained monaurally with the nontest ear plugged and muffed. Results for the supra-aural earphones generally agreed well with previously reported measurements. A broadband masking noise was used to directly test the ANSI S3.1-1977 permissible background noise levels for measuring to audiometric zero using standard audiometric earphones. This "ANSI noise" raised the average thresholds of 15 normal-hearing test subjects by 3 to 5 dB at the octave frequencies from 500 to 4000 Hz. With a noise conforming to the less stringent OSHA-1983 regulation, average thresholds were elevated 9 to 17 dB. An "ENT office noise" with an overall sound level of 54 dBA raised average thresholds even further, by as much as 29 dB at 500 Hz. Use of the circumaural system in the office noise limited the threshold elevation to 11, 5, 2, and 0 dB at the four octave frequencies tested. With the fully ("deeply") inserted foam eartips, the threshold elevation in the simulated office noise was 2 dB or less at all test frequencies. Actual threshold elevations agreed closely with predictions based on a critical ratio calculation utilizing measured sound field noise levels and measured earphone attenuation values.

Audiometry↗
PubMed1987

The contribution of personal radios to the noise exposure of employees at one industrial facility.

An investigation of the contribution made to an employee's noise dose from the output of personal radios was performed at a North Carolina textile manufacturing facility where the daily time-weighted average sound level (TWA) was approximately 87 dB, A-weighted sound pressure level [dB(A)]. The measured mean equivalent diffuse field output level of the personal radios was determined to be 83 dB(A) with a range from 70 to 98 dB(A). The daily TWA of a typical employee who did not use a personal radio was determined to be 86.6 dB(A), whereas the exposure of personal radio users was 88.5 dB(A)--an increase of 1.9 dB(A). This increase in exposure was estimated to result in 4 dB of additional permanent noise-induced hearing loss at 4 kHz for the 5th percentile (most sensitive portion) of the population after 20 years of exposure beginning at age 20. The study concluded that the additional contribution of the personal radios to the employee's daily TWA did not pose a significant additional threat to their hearing. Specific hearing conservation criteria, however, were recommended for continuation of personal radio use at the facility.

Environmental Exposure↗
PubMed1986

Methods of measuring the attenuation of hearing protection devices.

The published literature describing three real-ear-attenuation-at-threshold (REAT), nine above-threshold, and four objective methods of measuring hearing protector attenuation is reviewed and analyzed with regard to the accuracy, practicality, and applicability of the various techniques. The analysis indicates that the REAT method is one of the most accurate available techniques since it assesses all of the sound paths to the occluded ear and, depending upon the experimenter's intention, can reflect actual in-use attenuation as well. An artifact in the REAT paradigm is that masking in the occluded ear due to physiological noise can spuriously increase low-frequency (less than or equal to 500 Hz) attenuation, although the error never exceeds approximately 5 dB, regardless of the device, except below 125 Hz. Since the preponderance of available data indicates that attenuation is independent of sound level for intentionally linear protectors, the use of above-threshold procedures to evaluate attenuation is not a necessity. An exception exists in the case of impulsive noises, for which the existing data are not unequivocal with regard to hearing protector response characteristics. Two of the objective methods (acoustical test fixture and microphone in real ear) are considerable time savers. All objective procedures are lacking in their ability to accurately determine the importance of the flanking bone-conduction paths, although some authors have incorporated this feature as a post-measurement correction. The microphone in real-ear approach is suggested to be one of the most promising for future standardization efforts and research purposes, and the acoustical test fixture technique is recommended (with certain reservations) for quality control and buyer acceptance testing.

Acoustic Stimulation↗
PubMed1985

Is real-ear attenuation at threshold a function of hearing level?

In the course of measuring the real-ear attenuation at threshold (REAT) of experimenter-inserted E-A-R foam earplugs on 100 subjects, a statistically significant correlation was observed between attenuation and hearing level (for normal listeners, HTL less than or equal to 20 dB) at test frequencies from 2-8 kHz. Listeners with more sensitive hearing obtained better protection. The relationship was most robust at 6 and 8 kHz. For hearing levels greater than 20 dB, attenuation appeared independent of hearing level. A hypothesis was developed to explain the relationship for the normal listeners, based upon the fact that the high-frequency attenuation of the earplug was nearly bone-conduction limited. The hypothesis suggested that the attenuation of a hearing protector that provided substantially lower protection would not exhibit the same relationship. Data for such a device were collected for 70 subjects, and indeed demonstrated reduced correlation between attenuation and hearing level. Implications of the results of the experiments are discussed with regard to hearing level requirements for hearing protector attenuation test subjects, utilization of hearing-impaired listeners to measure REAT at suprathreshold (with respect to normal listeners) sound pressure levels, and linearity of hearing protector attenuation as a function of sound level.

Acoustics↗
PubMed1983

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

The most commonly alleged experimental artifact associated with real-ear attenuation at threshold (REAT) measurements of hearing protection devices (HPDs) was examined: Masking of the protected thresholds due to physiological noise amplified by the occlusion effect. An ear canal mounted subminiature microphone was used to obtain objective measures of physiological noise in occluded and unoccluded test conditions and of the insertion loss (IL) of insert, semi-aural, supra-aural and circumaural HPDs when exposed to broadband noise with a sound pressure level of 93 dB. Measurements spanned 1/3 octave bands from 125 Hz to 2 kHz. Attenuation was also measured via a subjective REAT procedure and the magnitude of the occlusion effect was examined via bone conduction audiometry. The IL data confirmed the accuracy of the REAT results except at the lowest frequencies tested, where the degree to which the REAT values were spuriously inflated was quantified and found to be device related. Furthermore, the magnitude of the error (which never exceeded 5 dB) could be predicted by measuring the physiological noise in the occluded ear and calculating how much this would mask the occluded threshold. It was noted that no evidence was found in the data to suggest a dependency of HPD attenuation on sound level.

Adult↗
PubMed1981

Re-examination of the low-frequency (50-1000 Hz) normal threshold of hearing in free and diffuse sound fields.

In two experimental replications involving a total of 17 otologically normal subjects, hearing threshold levels were observed that were from 2.6 to 7.1 dB less sensitive in the 125-1000-Hz frequency range, than those specified in ISO R226-1961. The published data from 12 additional threshold experiments conducted since 1933 were reviewed. Variables that could affect the data, such as free versus diffuse sound fields, pure tones versus 1/3-octave noise band stimuli, psychophysical methods, pulsed versus continuous stimuli, binaural versus monaural listening, age, sex, race, and otological rejection criteria, were analyzed. For frequencies from 50-1000 Hz and ages up to 35, the only corrections found to be necessary were for sound field conditions and binaural versus monaural listening. A second-order polynomial regression line was fitted to the combined, corrected data. The resultant thresholds were 5-6 dB less sensitive than ISO R226 between 50 and 250 Hz, with the divergence dropping to +1.7 and -1.5 dB at 500 and 1000 Hz, respectively.

Adult↗
PubMed1978

Presumed noise-induced permanent threshold shift resulting from exposure to an A-weighted Leq of 89 dB.

The noise-induced permanent threshold shift (NIPTS) resultings form up to ten years of exposure to an average A-weighted sound level Leq of 89 dB was investigated. Prior occupational noise exposure was controlled for by eliminating subjects with previous high-noise-level jobs or uncertain exposure histories. The final population consisted of 42 males and 58 females working a steady-state broadband noise environments. No attempt was made to screen subjects for any auditory pathology. A 222-subject control group from the same geographic area as the exposed subjects was selected such that none of its constituents had any effective industrial noise exposure. Presumed NIPTS was calculated by correcting each individual audiogram of the exposed subjects according to the aging curves developed from the control population hearing levels. The results indicated a considerable male-female difference in NIPTS, even though both groups were exposed to the same Leq. Averaging the results for all 100 subjects, in order to make comparisons to other available data, yielded results in close agreement to predictions based upon the work of Burns and Robinson, Baughn. NIOSH, and Passchier--Vermeer, indicating that 10 years of exposure to a daily Leq of 89 dB causes measurable hearing loss at 4 kHz.

Adult↗