Search

Objective: To design and develop a Portable Auditory Localization Acclimation Training (PALAT) system capable of producing psychoacoustically accurate localization cues; evaluate the training effect against a proven full-scale, laboratory-grade system under three listening conditions; and determine if the PALAT system is sensitive to differences among electronic level-dependent hearing protection devices (HPDs). Background: In-laboratory auditory localization training has demonstrated the ability to improve localization performance with the open (natural) ear, that is, unoccluded, and while wearing HPDs. The military requires a portable system capable of imparting similar training benefits as those demonstrated in laboratory experiments. Method: In a full-factorial repeated measures design experiment, 12 audiometrically normal participants completed localization training and testing using an identical, optimized training protocol on two training systems under three listening conditions (open ear, TEP-100, and ComTac™ III). Statistical tests were performed on mean absolute accuracy score and front-back reversal errors. Results: No statistical difference existed between the PALAT and laboratory-grade DRILCOM systems on two dependent localization accuracy measurements at all stages of training. In addition, the PALAT system detected the same localization performance differences among the three listening conditions. Conclusion: The PALAT system imparted similar training benefits as the DRILCOM system and was sensitive to HPD localization performance differences. Application: The user-operable PALAT system and optimized training protocol can be employed by the military, law enforcement, and various industries, to improve auditory localization performance in conditions where auditory situation awareness is critical to safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Design an optimised auditory azimuth localisation training protocol by: (1) differing the number of training stimuli presentations to determine the highest angular accuracy achieved in the fewest training sessions, (2) evaluating the presence of training transfer from a broadband stimulus to untrained military-relevant stimuli and (3) measuring the effect of differing training strategies on localisation accuracy. Design: Two pilot studies of 18 and six subjects, respectively, determined the number of presentations and type of stimuli to be included in a localisation training experiment that evaluated different training strategies. In the pilot studies, participants trained using eight Learning Units (LU) and then tested using untrained stimuli. In the main experiment, 40 participants completed eight LUs using four different learning strategies, with 10 participants randomly assigned to each condition. Sample: All participants were ages 18–42 normal-hearing listeners with thresholds not exceeding 25 dB HL and asymmetry not exceeding 15 dB HL. Results: Transfer of training occurred using three of the four untrained stimuli. The training strategy that resulted in the highest localisation accuracy involved active participation. Conclusions: Training with a broadband stimulus transfers to untrained broadband stimuli. Training involving the active participation strategy resulted in the greatest localisation accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(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: 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]