Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Ear Protective Devices”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 469 records · Page 26Linked to original sources
PubMed2001

The effect of recreational gunfire noise on hearing in workers exposed to occupational noise.

Hearing sensitivity for an experimental group of 278 industrial workers who engaged in recreational shooting was compared with that of an age-matched control group of 278 nonshooting industrial workers to examine the effect of gunfire exposure on auditory thresholds. The influence of age and the number of unprotected gunshot exposures per year also was examined. The subjects in the experimental group completed a questionnaire to define the types of firearms used, the number of years shooting, and the number of protected and unprotected gunshot exposures per year. Results revealed that hearing sensitivity for frequencies 3.0, 4.0, and 6.0 kHz for both ears in the experimental group was an average of approximately 5 to 10 dB poorer than that of the control subjects. Although both subject groups demonstrated poorer 3.0-to-6.0-kHz hearing sensitivity for left-ear compared with right-ear listening, the degree of asymmetry between ears was greater for the experimental subjects. Older shooters had more hearing loss and greater threshold asymmetry than younger shooters, but there was no significant relationship between hearing sensitivity and the number of unprotected exposures per year. This latter finding was attributed to a fourfold increase in the number of unprotected annual exposures that were reported by younger shooters, who had inherently better hearing than did the older shooters.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Double hearing protection and speech intelligibility-room for improvement.

INTRODUCTION: Double hearing protection is used in many air forces around the world for protection in noisy aircraft environments, particularly in helicopters. The usual combination is foam ear plugs under headset or helmet muffs. Much of the research that spurred the introduction of foam earplugs indicated little change in speech intelligibility in persons with normal hearing. However, aircrew often complain about having to maximize intercom volume for speech understanding, causing a situation with no reserve volume and bad sound quality. In recent years, further developments have included so-called hi-fi plugs and custom made ear plugs which are claimed to improve speech communication. The aim of the present project was to investigate different types of ear plugs and their effect on speech intelligibility in helicopter noise. METHODS: Each of nine normal-hearing pilot subjects were placed in an environment of recorded helicopter noise from a BO-105 helicopter. Speech audiometry was performed under four different conditions: headset only, and three different ear plugs worn under the headset. Fitting of the ear plugs was performed by an ear, nose and throat specialist to ensure similar conditions. The sequence of test conditions was randomized and double-blind. In addition, a subjective rating scale was used. RESULTS: Wearing foam ear plugs under the headset decreased speech intelligibility dramatically. The "hi-fi" plug was somewhat better than foam plugs, and the custom made ear plug provided a speech intelligibility close to the headset-only situation. Subjective rating scores coincided with these findings. DISCUSSION: In helicopter noise, custom made ear plugs may provide a much improved speech intelligibility over conventional plugs when worn under a headset, while maintaining improved noise protection over the headset-alone situation. Custom made ear plugs might therefore be a good alternative to other forms of enhanced noise protection in helicopters.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

[Contralateral masking effects on cerebral auditory evoked potentials in man: a trial in working practice application in conservative dentistry].

In hearing the masking consists to disturb the information perception which means its reception, codeage and transmission are distorted in the auditory system. The electrophysiological technique by auditory evoked potentials on brain has permitted to study the noise effects with homolateral and contralateral masking method in monaural hearing. The results show that the noise distorts the maximal amplitude of the evoked response and lengthens latency. They do to appear a better resistance of a left ear preference and a superiority of right hemisphere corresponding: they characterize by an important development of auditory evoked potentials with or without masking. As a result for men who are exposed to excessive noise like teachers and students in Odontology, we suggest an inequality protection of auditory system considering the both ear sensibility difference.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Turn it down!

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Ear Protective Devices↗
PubMed1998

[Observation on sleep improvement under noise environment by wearing earplugs].

Sleep experiments were done in 6 subjects under 3 conditions. (1) Quiet, background noise level lower than 45dB (A); (2) Noisy with earplugs, ambient noise level 90dB (A); (3) Noisy, ambient noise level 90dB (A), and subjects wearing earplugs. EEG, REM and EMG during sleep were recorded. Sleep latency, times and duration of waking up, sleep rate of each stage and total sleep rate were analyzed. It shows that sleep under noise condition can be improved by wearing earplugs.

Adult↗