Search

(1) determine if untrained, normal-hearing listeners could learn, with regimented practice trials, to localise a dissonant tonal complex while wearing electronic hearing protectors and achieve equivalent performance to the unoccluded ear, (2) determine if different protector designs affect the localisation learning curve, and (3) determine if a sequential training regimen could be used to determine whether a device is not amenable to training effects. All subjects completed paired training and testing trials, in 12 Learning Units (LU), first with the open ear., then half with device A, a US Army TCAPS (INVISIO® X50), and the other half with device B (a prototype). Both groups then finished with the opposite device. Ten subjects participated, with thresholds below 25 dBHL, bilateral symmetry below 15 dBHL, and naivety with electronic protectors and localisation testing. Subjects eventually approached their open ear capability with device A, but never reached equivalent open ear nor asymptotic performance with device B. Depending upon a protector's sound transduction, frequency response, and other characteristics, different amounts of training are required to adapt. The training protocol has value in determining device acceptability based on the training burden required, especially when mission-related localisation performance is important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To design a test battery and conduct a proof-of-concept experiment of a test method that can be used to measure the detection performance afforded by military advanced hearing protection devices (HPDs) and tactical communication and protective systems (TCAPS).Design: The detection test was conducted with each of the four loudspeakers located at front, right, rear and left of the participant. Participants wore 2 in-ear-type TCAPS, 1 earmuff-type TCAPS, a passive Combat Arms Earplug in its “open” or pass-through setting and an EB-15LE™ electronic earplug. Devices with electronic gain systems were tested under two gain settings: “unity” and “max”. Testing without any device (open ear) was conducted as a control.Study sample: Ten participants with audiometric requirements of 25 dBHL or better at 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000 Hz in both ears.Results: Detection task performance varied with different signals and speaker locations. The test identified performance differences among certain TCAPS and protectors, and the open ear. Conclusions: A computer-controlled detection subtest of the Detection-Recognition/Identification-Localisation-Communication (DRILCOM) test battery was designed and implemented. Tested in a proof-of-concept experiment, it showed statistically-significant sensitivity to device differences in detection effects with the small sample of participants (10). This result has important implications for selection and deployment of TCAPS and HPDs on soldiers and workers in dynamic situations. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: To determine if training with electronically-modulated hearing protection (EMHP) and the open ear results in auditory learning on a horizontal localization task. Design: Baseline localization testing was conducted in three listening conditions (open-ear, in-the-ear (ITE) EMHP, and over-the-ear (OTE) EMHP). Participants then wore either an ITE or OTE EMHP for 12, almost daily, one-hour training sessions. After training was complete, participants again underwent localization testing in all three listening conditions. A computer with a custom software and hardware interface presented localization sounds and collected participant responses. Study sample: Twelve participants were recruited from the student population at Virginia Tech. Audiometric requirements were 35 dBHL at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz bilaterally, and 55 dBHL at 4000 Hz in at least one ear. Results: Pre-training localization performance with an ITE or OTE EMHP was worse than open-ear performance. After training with any given listening condition, including open-ear, performance in that listening condition improved, in part from a practice effect. However, post-training localization performance showed near equal performance between the open-ear and training EMHP. Auditory learning occurred for the training EMHP, but not for the non-training EMHP; that is, there was no significant training crossover effect between the ITE and the OTE devices. Conclusion: It is evident from this study that auditory learning (improved horizontal localization performance) occurred with the EMHP for which training was performed. However, performance improvements found with the training EMHP were not realized in the non-training EMHP. Furthermore, localization performance in the open-ear condition also benefitted from training on the task. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction to the journal is presented which discusses topics within the issue including various aspects of small caliber firearm noise exposures, firearm noise that is not typically experienced by persons using firearms at a target range or when hunting, and noise exposure risks.

Objective: To investigate the effect of controlled low-speed wind-noise on the auditory situation awareness performance afforded by military hearing protection/enhancement devices (HPED) and tactical communication and protective systems (TCAPS).Design: Recognition/identification and pass-through communications tasks were separately conducted under three wind conditions (0, 5, and 10 mph). Subjects wore two in-ear-type TCAPS, one earmuff-type TCAPS, a Combat Arms Earplug in its ‘open’ or pass-through setting, and an EB-15LE™ electronic earplug. Devices with electronic gain systems were tested under two gain settings: ‘unity’ and ‘max’. Testing without any device (open ear) was conducted as a control.Study sample: Ten subjects were recruited from the student population at Virginia Tech. Audiometric requirements were 25 dBHL or better at 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, and 8000 Hz in both ears.Results: Performance on the interaction of communication task-by-device was significantly different only in 0 mph wind speed. The between-device performance differences varied with azimuthal speaker locations.Conclusions: It is evident from this study that stable (non-gusting) wind speeds up to 10 mph did not significantly degrade recognition/identification task performance and pass-through communication performance of the group of HPEDs and TCAPS tested. However, the various devices performed differently as the test sound signal speaker location was varied and it appears that physical as well as electronic features may have contributed to this directional result. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]