Effect of Hearing and Head Protection on the Localization of Tonal and Broadband Reverse Alarms.
audition
personal protective equipment
warning devices
workplace safety
Journal
Human factors
ISSN: 1547-8181
Titre abrégé: Hum Factors
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0374660
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2022
11 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
19
2
2021
medline:
19
10
2022
entrez:
18
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study explored the effects of hearing protection devices (HPDs) and head protection on the ability of normal-hearing individuals to localize reverse alarms in background noise. Among factors potentially contributing to accidents involving heavy vehicles, reverse alarms can be difficult to localize in space, leading to errors in identifying the source of danger. Previous studies have shown that traditional tonal alarms are more difficult to localize than broadband alarms. In addition, HPDs and safety helmets may further impair localization. Standing in the middle of an array of eight loudspeakers, participants with and without HPDs (passive and level-dependent) had to identify the loudspeaker emitting a single cycle of the alarm while performing a task on a tablet computer. The broadband alarm was easier to localize than the tonal alarm. Passive HPDs had a significant impact on sound localization (earmuffs generally more so than earplugs), particularly double hearing protection, and level-dependent HPDs did not fully restore sound localization abilities. The safety helmet had a much lesser impact on performance than HPDs. Where good sound localization abilities are essential in noisy workplaces, the broadband alarm should be used, double hearing protection should be avoided, and earplug-style passive or level-dependent devices may be a better choice than earmuff-style devices. Construction safety helmets, however, seem to have only a minimal effect on sound localization. Results of this study will help stakeholders make decisions that are more informed in promoting safer workplaces.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
This study explored the effects of hearing protection devices (HPDs) and head protection on the ability of normal-hearing individuals to localize reverse alarms in background noise.
BACKGROUND
Among factors potentially contributing to accidents involving heavy vehicles, reverse alarms can be difficult to localize in space, leading to errors in identifying the source of danger. Previous studies have shown that traditional tonal alarms are more difficult to localize than broadband alarms. In addition, HPDs and safety helmets may further impair localization.
METHOD
Standing in the middle of an array of eight loudspeakers, participants with and without HPDs (passive and level-dependent) had to identify the loudspeaker emitting a single cycle of the alarm while performing a task on a tablet computer.
RESULTS
The broadband alarm was easier to localize than the tonal alarm. Passive HPDs had a significant impact on sound localization (earmuffs generally more so than earplugs), particularly double hearing protection, and level-dependent HPDs did not fully restore sound localization abilities. The safety helmet had a much lesser impact on performance than HPDs.
CONCLUSION
Where good sound localization abilities are essential in noisy workplaces, the broadband alarm should be used, double hearing protection should be avoided, and earplug-style passive or level-dependent devices may be a better choice than earmuff-style devices. Construction safety helmets, however, seem to have only a minimal effect on sound localization.
APPLICATION
Results of this study will help stakeholders make decisions that are more informed in promoting safer workplaces.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33596712
doi: 10.1177/0018720821992223
pmc: PMC9574903
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1105-1120Références
J Otolaryngol. 1993 Oct;22(5):357-63
pubmed: 8283505
Otol Neurotol. 2008 Aug;29(5):579-85
pubmed: 18520633
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 27;10(8):e0136568
pubmed: 26313145
Scand Audiol. 1996;25(1):3-12
pubmed: 8658023
Noise Health. 2011 Mar-Apr;13(51):99-112
pubmed: 21368435
Int J Audiol. 2018 Feb;57(sup1):S51-S60
pubmed: 29172790
J Acoust Soc Am. 1990 May;87(5):2188-200
pubmed: 2348023
J Safety Res. 2018 Jun;65:73-81
pubmed: 29776532
Ear Hear. 2020 Jan/Feb;41(1):82-94
pubmed: 31045653
Ergonomics. 2004 Jun 10;47(7):748-71
pubmed: 15204286
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1990 Jul;51(7):370-7
pubmed: 2382639
Hum Factors. 1999 Jun;41(2):282-94
pubmed: 10422534
Int J Audiol. 2012 Feb;51 Suppl 1:S20-30
pubmed: 22264060
Front Neurosci. 2014 Jun 11;8:135
pubmed: 24966807
Hum Factors. 2005 Spring;47(1):188-98
pubmed: 15960096
Hear Res. 1986;21(1):67-73
pubmed: 3957797
Noise Health. 2009 Oct-Dec;11(45):199-205
pubmed: 19805929
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Jan 30;16(3):
pubmed: 30704136
Hum Factors. 2001 Spring;43(1):122-8
pubmed: 11474758
Noise Health. 2013 Nov-Dec;15(67):420-36
pubmed: 24231421