Home Email this page Print this page Bookmark this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size
Noise & Health  
 CURRENT ISSUE    PAST ISSUES    AHEAD OF PRINT    SEARCH   GET E-ALERTS    
 
 Next article
 Previous article
Table of Contents

Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Citation Manager
Access Statistics
Reader Comments
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1956    
    Printed66    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded16    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 91  |  Page : 278--285

Using auditory steady-state responses for measuring hearing protector occlusion effect


Department of Mechanical Engineering, École de technologie supérieure, Université du Québec, Montréal, Québec, Canada

Correspondence Address:
Olivier Valentin
École de Technologie Supérieure, Département de Génie Mécanique, 1100 rue Notre-Dame Ouest, Montréal (QC), H3C 1K3
Canada
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/nah.NAH_13_17

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: The currently available methods for measuring the occlusion effect (OE) of hearing protection devices (HPDs) have limitations. Objective microphonic measurements do not assess bone-conducted sounds directly transmitted to the cochlea. Psychophysical measurements at threshold are biased due to the low-frequency masking effects from test participants’ physiological noise and the variability of measurements based on subjective responses. An auditory steady-state responses (ASSRs) procedure is used as a technique that might overcome these limitations. Participants and Methods: Pure-tone stimuli (250 and 500 Hz), with amplitude modulated at 40 Hz, were presented to twelve adults with normal hearing through a bone vibrator at three levels in 10-dB steps. The following two conditions were assessed: the unoccluded ear canal and occluded ear canal. ASSR amplitude data as a function of the stimulation level were linearized using least-square regressions. The ASSR-based “physiological” OE was then calculated as the average difference between the two measurements. Results: A significant statistical difference was found between the average threshold-based psychophysical OE and the average ASSR-based OE. Conclusion: This study successfully ascertained that it is possible to objectively measure the OE of HPD using ASSRs collected on the same participant both with and without protectors.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article