Next Article in Journal
Notched-Noise Embedded Frequency Specific Chirps for Objective Audiometry Using Auditory Brainstem Responses
Previous Article in Journal
A Report of Extended High Frequency Audiometry Thresholds in School-Age Children with No Hearing Complaints
 
 
Audiology Research is published by MDPI from Volume 10 Issue 2 (2020). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with PAGEPress.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison of Speech Intelligibility Measures for An Electronic Amplifying Earmuff and An Identical Passive Attenuation Device

by
David C. Byrne
1,* and
Catherine V. Palmer
2
1
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, USA
2
Department of Communication Science and Disorders, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Audiol. Res. 2012, 2(1), e5; https://doi.org/10.4081/audiores.2012.e5
Submission received: 14 September 2011 / Revised: 3 January 2012 / Accepted: 4 January 2012 / Published: 24 February 2012

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify any differences between speech intelligibility measures obtained with MineEars electronic earmuffs (ProEars, Westcliffe, CO, USA) and the Bilsom model 847 (Sperian Hearing Protection, San Diego, CA, USA), which is a conventional passive-attenuation earmuff. These two devices are closely related, since the MineEars device consisted of a Bilsom 847 earmuff with the addition of electronic amplification circuits. Intelligibility scores were obtained by conducting listening tests with 15 normalhearing human subject volunteers wearing the earmuffs. The primary research objective was to determine whether speech understanding differs between the passive earmuffs and the electronic earmuffs (with the volume control set at three different positions) in a background of 90 dB(A) continuous noise. As expected, results showed that speech intelligibility increased with higher speech-to-noise ratios; however, the electronic earmuff with the volume control set at full-on performed worse than when it was set to off or the lowest on setting. This finding suggests that the maximum volume control setting for these electronic earmuffs may not provide any benefits in terms of increased speech intelligibility in the background noise condition that was tested. Other volume control settings would need to be evaluated for their ability to produce higher speech intelligibility scores. Additionally, since an extensive electro-acoustic evaluation of the electronic earmuff was not performed as a part of this study, the exact cause of the reduced intelligibility scores at full volume remains unknown.
Keywords: noise; hearing protection; speech intelligibility noise; hearing protection; speech intelligibility

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Byrne, D.C.; Palmer, C.V. Comparison of Speech Intelligibility Measures for An Electronic Amplifying Earmuff and An Identical Passive Attenuation Device. Audiol. Res. 2012, 2, e5. https://doi.org/10.4081/audiores.2012.e5

AMA Style

Byrne DC, Palmer CV. Comparison of Speech Intelligibility Measures for An Electronic Amplifying Earmuff and An Identical Passive Attenuation Device. Audiology Research. 2012; 2(1):e5. https://doi.org/10.4081/audiores.2012.e5

Chicago/Turabian Style

Byrne, David C., and Catherine V. Palmer. 2012. "Comparison of Speech Intelligibility Measures for An Electronic Amplifying Earmuff and An Identical Passive Attenuation Device" Audiology Research 2, no. 1: e5. https://doi.org/10.4081/audiores.2012.e5

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop