Search

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 the effects of current hearing protection/enhancement devices (HPEDs) and tactical communications and protection systems (TCAPS) on auditory detection and identification of three critical military signals associated with potential 'threats.' Design: Utilizing a 6 × 3 within-subject experimental design, 24 normal-hearing Virginia Tech Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadets and active duty soldiers participated. Study sample: Five HPEDS and TCAP devices plus the open ear were tested. On each trial, either wearing a device or with open ears, subjects walked along a 3000-foot line of discrete distance markers toward the auditory threat, which was not visible but still within line-of-sight over flat terrain, stopping to listen when instructed. On approach to the threat, the linear distance at first detection was measured, followed by a continued approach until positive identification occurred. Then the subject reversed direction, retreating away from the threat until detection was lost. Results: ANOVA and post hoc tests were applied to determine statistically-significant differences among HPEDs, TCAPS, and the open ear on the objective detection and identification distance measures. Conclusions: The results have serious implications for selection of HPDs, HPEDs, and TCAPS for applications where preservation of auditory situational awareness via the fundamental detection and identification tasks are essential. [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: A controlled field experiment was conducted to evaluate localization of suprathreshold gunshot reports (from blank cartridges) with four hearing protection-enhancement devices (HPEDs) in comparison to the open ear with ambient outdoor noise and in 82 dBA diesel military heavy truck noise. Design: Five measures of localization accuracy and response time for eight shooter positions in azimuth were measured. Study sample: Nine normal-hearing and four impaired-hearing participants were tested. Results: Statistical analysis showed worse accuracy and response time performance with the electronic earmuffs (Peltor Com-Tac II™ in full gain position) than with the other tested HPEDs (Etymotic EB 1 and EB 15 High-Fidelity Electronic BlastPLG™ electronic earplugs, both set to Lo gain positions; and 3M Single-Ended Combat Arms™ passive earplug in level-dependent, 'open' position). Performance with all HPEDs was worse than that with the open ear, except on right-left confusions, in which the earmuff stood alone as worst, and in response time, for which the EB 1 was equivalent to the open ear. There was no significant main effect of noise on performance. Hearing impairment increased right-left confusions. Subjective ratings related to localization generally corroborated objective localization performance. Conclusions: None of the tested HPEDs preserved 'normal' localization performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]