A total of three ear conditions including unoccluded were used.
Abel S.M., Lam Q. Additionally, the results for the outdoor plug attenuated the thresholds by 5 and 14 dB at 0.5 kHz and 1 kHz. PMC legacy view Title of subordinate document. 
The corresponding SNRs were 15.6, 28.1, and 25.7 dB. Several studies had a value 0 between the lower limit and upper limit of 95% CI and/or a p-value higher than 0.05 which means there were high heterogeneities. Those were also communications-enabled headsets, Systems Command confirmed. Zimpfer V., Sarafian D. Impact of hearing protection devices on sound localization performance. First, the effect size of sound attenuation which compared the hearing thresholds for the control (i.e., unoccluded and/or open ear) and an experimental group (i.e., wearing the HPDs) showed 1.080 (95% CI: 0.1671.993, p < 0.05). 
Talcott K.A., Casali J.G., Keady J.P., Killion M.C. Conceptualization: C.K. Averaged across the four groups and three stimuli, the mean median response times ranged from 712 ms for ANR On to 805 ms in the unoccluded condition. argued that double protection, such as a combination of earplugs with earmuffs, does not help localize the incoming sounds [24]. Rawool V.W. 0000004687 00000 n
further reported the effects of HPDs on the listening effort, which was regarded as cognitive resources for auditory tasks [3]. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. The ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of device condition [F(4,36) = 13.64. In addition, the studies conducted by Carmichel et al. Fourteen females (age 21 to 24 years) with normal hearing. Byrne D.C., Palmer C.V. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. The normal hearing listeners performed best, and SNHL listeners performed worst. 0000013173 00000 n
This increased listening effort produced cognitive fatigue, especially in noisy circumstances. A total of 47 adults (19 with normal hearing, 15 with SNHL, and 13 with SNHL and tinnitus). Outcomes of sound localization and speech perception were reported by eight [4,8,9,10,18,23,24,25] and seven [3,11,12,13,19,26,27] of the twenty studies, respectively. It is clearly acknowledged that industrial workers and individuals in military service have inevitably faced more noise exposure and that exposure has increased the incidence of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) [1,2]. The dichotic sound transmission earmuff (15.8%) showed the lowest percentage correctness for localization. Suppressors, which Marine Corps Times reported on in recent years, including widespread fielding that began in December 2020, allow for units to retain a tactical edge by maintaining lower noise signatures when engaging an adversary. Six of twenty studies conducted a comparison between types of HPDs. 1215 0 obj
<>
endobj
The The experimental conditions consisted of four different ear conditions (i.e., earplug, passive earmuff, ANR earmuff, and unoccluded ear). The HINT sentence lists were used as the stimuli. Inclusion criteria for the present study using Participants, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, and Study Designs (PICOS) Strategy. The results for speech perception demonstrated that HPDs partially support the ability of speech perception, but they do not have any significant effect (SMD: 0.366, 95% CI: 0.3751.106, p = 0.333). Two authors (C.K. Co-occurrence of hearing loss and posttraumatic stress disorder among injured military personnel: A retrospective study. On the other hand, our exclusion criteria were modeling studies, engineering design, no research article (e.g., narrative review paper, conference abstract, letters, book and book chapters, magazines, and proceeding paper), and not being written in English. Figure 1 explains each of these steps visually. In view of user ability to have speech perception, similar to sound localization ability, the effect of HPDs was not significant based on the current meta-analysis. The primary purpose of the current study on systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify the effectiveness of HPDs. No other differences were significant between the HPD conditions. A total of five ear conditions were adjusted: (1) ears under unoccluded conditions, (2) ears with Class A muffs, (3) ears with muffs on hard hat and air-purifying half-mask respirators, (4) ears with muffs on hard hat and safety glasses, and (5) ears with muffs on hard hat, safety glasses, and respirators. They concluded that the use of HPDs increased the amount of listening effort. That was a smaller fielding effort that had a planned delivery of 4,519 headsets produced by the company INVISO. The unoccluded condition showed a significantly higher number of correct responses than any other HPDs conditions. The new PMC design is here! These results suggest that the function of HPDs, especially for sound attenuation, could be improved and decrease the deviation for trials where individuals tried to wear HPDs. Simpson B.D., Bolia R.S., McKinley R.L., Brungart D.S. Stimuli were visual targets with continuous broadband (70 Hz to 16 kHz) pink noise. Interestingly, Tufts et al. Number of correct responses and number of confusions. The scores were calculated using 1, which was assigned by the item (i.e., YES), or 0 (i.e., NO). Hence, we aimed to evaluate the major functions of the HPDs using systematic review and meta-analysis techniques. ; Supervision: W.H. Twenty listeners (age 2451 years) with normal hearing. Brown A.D., Beemer B.T., Greene N.T., Argo IV T., Meegan G.D., Tollin D.J. For the functions and effects of HPDs, a subgroup analysis was conducted and is presented in Figure 3. PROSPERO, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Bethesda, MD 20894, Web Policies Reporting bias occurred when the reporting and spreading of the results of studies were influenced by their characteristics and directions of their main findings. 1215 47
0000006753 00000 n
Averaged across the four groups and three ear conditions, the mean median response times ranged from 667 ms for the broadband noise to 803 ms for the 0.5 kHz stimulus. Four ear conditions (i.e., no HPD (unoccluded), foam earplugs, earmuffs, combination of earplugs and earmuffs) and five auditory cue conditions (four HPDs condition and no cue condition) were used. Therefore, many researchers have studied the functions and effects of HPDs whenever a new device is released. Mean per-frequency attenuation and mean PAR for each earplug type and training condition showed that the mean PAR of untrained non-custom plug produced 3.2 dB less attenuation than the trained non-custom plug condition. As the participants in the reviewed articles were adults, both with and without hearing loss, the random-effect model was used to calculate the effect size and summary estimate. For the frequency comparison, the trained group showed higher attenuation values than the untrained group did for both custom and non-custom plugs. The HPDs consisted of: (1) unoccluded, (2) foam earplug, (3) pre-molded earplug, (4) flat attenuation HPD, (5) level-dependent HPD, (6) passive earmuff, (7) dichotic sound transmission earmuff, and (8) custom-made diotic sound transmission earmuff. Comparison of speech intelligibility measures for an electronic amplifying earmuff and an identical passive attenuation device. The funnel plot and Eggers regression analysis were conducted to assess the risk of bias. Korean J. Otorhinolaryngol.-Head Neck Surg. For the sound source identification task, three different signals, such as 0.5 kHz, 4 kHz, and broadband noise, were presented. Sound attenuation of the indoor/outdoor range EAR plug. 0000073303 00000 n
In the comparisons of HPD analyzed by ANOVA with repeated measures, interactions including ear condition x noise level [F(2,18) = 19.38. 0000054075 00000 n
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Ver. The ANOVA showed a significant main effect of the listening condition (F = 17.22. Characteristics and effects of hearing protection devices for all enrolled studies for the participants, intervention, control group, and outcome of each study. Two-way repeated-measure ANOVA revealed the significant main effect of the test condition factor [F(2.9,10.6) = 68.33. The range in attenuation in order to the conditions was greater at 0.25 and 0.5 kHz (9 dB) and at its lowest 2 and 3.15 kHz (34 dB). For the comparisons of types of HPDs, 32 of NRR HPD showed lower averaged intelligibility scores in all testing SNR conditions. and transmitted securely. <]/Prev 738733/XRefStm 1627>>
Sound source identification with ANR earmuffs. Based on inclusion criteria, 20 articles were chosen and then analyzed. Heterogeneity (genuine differences underlying the results of the studies) [28] across the articles was identified using the Higgins I2-statistics and Cochrans Q-test. Abel S.M., Sass-Kortsak A., Kielar A. The background noise was presented in three different SNR conditions (i.e., quiet, 6 and 12 dB). When averaged across all stimuli and locations, the mean response time for correct responses in the unoccluded condition (mean: 1.58s, SD: 0.76) was not different from the mean response time to errors (mean: 1.64s, SD: 0.81). [(accessed on 7 April 2021)]. The mean noise attenuation for 60 ears at all frequencies was lower than the manufacturers rating. There were no significant differences between the study quality scores (2 = 3.7536, df = 19, p > 0.05). 0000054341 00000 n
The averaged relative HINT scores indicated that the acoustic HPD showed 1.1 (SD: 1.9) relative HINT score which was higher than the electronic HPD (mean: 0.4, SD: 1.2) at 75 dB SPL. Todd is a Marine veteran of the Iraq War. Manning C., Mermagen T., Scharine A. Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mulrow C.D., Shamseer L., Tetzlaff J.M., Akl E.A., Brennan S.E., et al. 0000074364 00000 n
Efficacy of individual computer-based auditory training for people with hearing loss: A systematic review of the evidence. 0000015745 00000 n
Dastpaak H., Alimohammadi I., jalal Sameni S., Abolghasemi J., Vosoughi S. Effects of earplug hearing protectors on the intelligibility of Persian words in noisy environments. 1Laboratory of Hearing and Technology, Research Institute of Audiology and Speech Pathology, College of Natural Sciences, Hallym University, Chuncheon 24252, Korea; moc.liamg@456ajqskc, 2Division of Speech Pathology and Audiology, College of Natural Sciences, Hallym University, Chuncheon 24252, Korea. To identify the results of the meta-analysis more clearly, a subgroup analysis (i.e., attenuation, sound localization, and speech perception) was conducted. Four stimuli (i.e., two successive transient clicks of a semiautomatic handgun being loaded, the double ring of a telephone with a mechanical ringer, and electronically generated FM tone bursts at 0.5 and 4 kHz) and four HPDs (i.e., electronic earmuffs, dynamic level compression protectors, action ear sport, and unoccluded) were used. 0000009528 00000 n
Marine Corps Systems Command began fielding the hearing enhancement devices in July to infantry Marines. trailer
The Effect of Hearing-Protection Devices on Auditory Situational Awareness and Listening Effort. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement [14] and the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) of Cochrane Collaboration [15] were used as a methodology that commonly processes the systematic search for and meta-analysis of published articles and their review was reported. Furthermore, the performance of sound localization and speech perception were not negatively affected for those users wearing the HPDs. All tested HPDs significantly degraded localization performance relative to control (unoccluded) condition. Mean azimuth errors were analyzed using a 3 (hearing protector) 3 (source elevation) repeated-measures ANOVA, employing the HuynhFeldt correction, which revealed significant main effects of hearing protector, [F(2,10) = 29.94, All simple main effects of the hearing protector factor were statistically significant (, Ten normal hearing adults (mean age: 29.5 years). An ANOVA indicated that there were significant effects for ear condition [F(2,40) = 5.6. reported on the benefits of bone-conduction HPDs for tinnitus patients [27]. 2018. The active HPD showed a mean decrement in performance of 1725% compared to unprotected listening across the two noises. The summarized results of the reviewed studies according to the PICOS criteria are displayed in Table 3. A two-way ANOVA demonstrated that there were significant main effects for HPD [F(4,48) = 3.716. Simply, in terms of the latest technology of HPDs, active noise reduction HPDs may be better than the HPDs in terms of passive noise reduction. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Compared to non-customized earplugs, customized earplugs showed significantly better consistency of attenuation values at frequency ranges of 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz. Abel S.M., Paik J.S. Consistency of attenuation across multiple fittings of custom and non-custom earplugs. 0000054922 00000 n
The included articles were identified to determine whether their data were suitable for meta-analysis. Response accuracy (%) and search time (sec), For response accuracy, repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that neither of the main effects nor the interaction was found to be statistically significant (. Although HPDs seem to be a passive method of noise control, they are the most practical and good enough when appropriately fitted for a correct size and have received adequate maintenance [5,6]. Twelve young adults (age range18 to 30 years) and twelve older adults (age range40 to 55 years) with normal hearing. Publishers Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Repeated-measures of ANOVA conducted on mean PAR showed the training to be statistically significant [F(1,29) = 11.77. The funnel plot is a kind of scatter plot consisting of a y-axis for the sample size of studies and an x-axis for the effect size. For the speech perception test, two levels of noise (75 and 90 dB SPL) were used. The authors declare no conflict of interest. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the Conservation and management of hearing loss in musicians. about navigating our updated article layout. Asymmetrical graph of funnel plot indicating publication bias (B). This work was supported by the Hallym University Research Fund (HRF-202109-006). Additionally, the ANR muff produced significantly lower masked thresholds than the passive muff did. Then, only 687 articles were accessed to review their full texts at the eligibility stage. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Thirty adults with normal hearing (age range20 to 58 years). A total of forty-five adults (age of 23 to 81 years) participated. The unoccluded condition had the lowest search time, regardless of the set size. The custom-made diotic sound transmission earmuff (66.3%) and foam earplug (64.6%) showed similar percentages of correctness. Cochrans Q-test indicated a 95% statistical significance level (p < 0.05). Gigure C., Laroche C., Vaillancourt V. The interaction of hearing loss and level-dependent hearing protection on speech recognition in noise. Moreover, the effects of user training were significant at three testing frequencies (i.e., 250, 500, and 1000 Hz). Unlikely for the passive HPD, an active HPD with activation of level-dependent function showed only a small effect on performance and a mean benefit of 67%. For a systematic review and meta-analysis, standardized mean differences (SMDs) and effect size were calculated using a random-effect model.
The corresponding SNRs were 15.6, 28.1, and 25.7 dB. Several studies had a value 0 between the lower limit and upper limit of 95% CI and/or a p-value higher than 0.05 which means there were high heterogeneities. Those were also communications-enabled headsets, Systems Command confirmed. Zimpfer V., Sarafian D. Impact of hearing protection devices on sound localization performance. First, the effect size of sound attenuation which compared the hearing thresholds for the control (i.e., unoccluded and/or open ear) and an experimental group (i.e., wearing the HPDs) showed 1.080 (95% CI: 0.1671.993, p < 0.05). Talcott K.A., Casali J.G., Keady J.P., Killion M.C. Conceptualization: C.K. Averaged across the four groups and three stimuli, the mean median response times ranged from 712 ms for ANR On to 805 ms in the unoccluded condition. argued that double protection, such as a combination of earplugs with earmuffs, does not help localize the incoming sounds [24]. Rawool V.W. 0000004687 00000 n
further reported the effects of HPDs on the listening effort, which was regarded as cognitive resources for auditory tasks [3]. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. The ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of device condition [F(4,36) = 13.64. In addition, the studies conducted by Carmichel et al. Fourteen females (age 21 to 24 years) with normal hearing. Byrne D.C., Palmer C.V. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. The normal hearing listeners performed best, and SNHL listeners performed worst. 0000013173 00000 n
This increased listening effort produced cognitive fatigue, especially in noisy circumstances. A total of 47 adults (19 with normal hearing, 15 with SNHL, and 13 with SNHL and tinnitus). Outcomes of sound localization and speech perception were reported by eight [4,8,9,10,18,23,24,25] and seven [3,11,12,13,19,26,27] of the twenty studies, respectively. It is clearly acknowledged that industrial workers and individuals in military service have inevitably faced more noise exposure and that exposure has increased the incidence of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) [1,2]. The dichotic sound transmission earmuff (15.8%) showed the lowest percentage correctness for localization. Suppressors, which Marine Corps Times reported on in recent years, including widespread fielding that began in December 2020, allow for units to retain a tactical edge by maintaining lower noise signatures when engaging an adversary. Six of twenty studies conducted a comparison between types of HPDs. 1215 0 obj
<>
endobj
The The experimental conditions consisted of four different ear conditions (i.e., earplug, passive earmuff, ANR earmuff, and unoccluded ear). The HINT sentence lists were used as the stimuli. Inclusion criteria for the present study using Participants, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, and Study Designs (PICOS) Strategy. The results for speech perception demonstrated that HPDs partially support the ability of speech perception, but they do not have any significant effect (SMD: 0.366, 95% CI: 0.3751.106, p = 0.333). Two authors (C.K. Co-occurrence of hearing loss and posttraumatic stress disorder among injured military personnel: A retrospective study. On the other hand, our exclusion criteria were modeling studies, engineering design, no research article (e.g., narrative review paper, conference abstract, letters, book and book chapters, magazines, and proceeding paper), and not being written in English. Figure 1 explains each of these steps visually. In view of user ability to have speech perception, similar to sound localization ability, the effect of HPDs was not significant based on the current meta-analysis. The primary purpose of the current study on systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify the effectiveness of HPDs. No other differences were significant between the HPD conditions. A total of five ear conditions were adjusted: (1) ears under unoccluded conditions, (2) ears with Class A muffs, (3) ears with muffs on hard hat and air-purifying half-mask respirators, (4) ears with muffs on hard hat and safety glasses, and (5) ears with muffs on hard hat, safety glasses, and respirators. They concluded that the use of HPDs increased the amount of listening effort. That was a smaller fielding effort that had a planned delivery of 4,519 headsets produced by the company INVISO. The unoccluded condition showed a significantly higher number of correct responses than any other HPDs conditions. The new PMC design is here! These results suggest that the function of HPDs, especially for sound attenuation, could be improved and decrease the deviation for trials where individuals tried to wear HPDs. Simpson B.D., Bolia R.S., McKinley R.L., Brungart D.S. Stimuli were visual targets with continuous broadband (70 Hz to 16 kHz) pink noise. Interestingly, Tufts et al. Number of correct responses and number of confusions. The scores were calculated using 1, which was assigned by the item (i.e., YES), or 0 (i.e., NO). Hence, we aimed to evaluate the major functions of the HPDs using systematic review and meta-analysis techniques. ; Supervision: W.H. Twenty listeners (age 2451 years) with normal hearing. Brown A.D., Beemer B.T., Greene N.T., Argo IV T., Meegan G.D., Tollin D.J. For the functions and effects of HPDs, a subgroup analysis was conducted and is presented in Figure 3. PROSPERO, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Bethesda, MD 20894, Web Policies Reporting bias occurred when the reporting and spreading of the results of studies were influenced by their characteristics and directions of their main findings. 1215 47
0000006753 00000 n
Averaged across the four groups and three ear conditions, the mean median response times ranged from 667 ms for the broadband noise to 803 ms for the 0.5 kHz stimulus. Four ear conditions (i.e., no HPD (unoccluded), foam earplugs, earmuffs, combination of earplugs and earmuffs) and five auditory cue conditions (four HPDs condition and no cue condition) were used. Therefore, many researchers have studied the functions and effects of HPDs whenever a new device is released. Mean per-frequency attenuation and mean PAR for each earplug type and training condition showed that the mean PAR of untrained non-custom plug produced 3.2 dB less attenuation than the trained non-custom plug condition. As the participants in the reviewed articles were adults, both with and without hearing loss, the random-effect model was used to calculate the effect size and summary estimate. For the frequency comparison, the trained group showed higher attenuation values than the untrained group did for both custom and non-custom plugs. The HPDs consisted of: (1) unoccluded, (2) foam earplug, (3) pre-molded earplug, (4) flat attenuation HPD, (5) level-dependent HPD, (6) passive earmuff, (7) dichotic sound transmission earmuff, and (8) custom-made diotic sound transmission earmuff. Comparison of speech intelligibility measures for an electronic amplifying earmuff and an identical passive attenuation device. The funnel plot and Eggers regression analysis were conducted to assess the risk of bias. Korean J. Otorhinolaryngol.-Head Neck Surg. For the sound source identification task, three different signals, such as 0.5 kHz, 4 kHz, and broadband noise, were presented. Sound attenuation of the indoor/outdoor range EAR plug. 0000073303 00000 n
In the comparisons of HPD analyzed by ANOVA with repeated measures, interactions including ear condition x noise level [F(2,18) = 19.38. 0000054075 00000 n
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Ver. The ANOVA showed a significant main effect of the listening condition (F = 17.22. Characteristics and effects of hearing protection devices for all enrolled studies for the participants, intervention, control group, and outcome of each study. Two-way repeated-measure ANOVA revealed the significant main effect of the test condition factor [F(2.9,10.6) = 68.33. The range in attenuation in order to the conditions was greater at 0.25 and 0.5 kHz (9 dB) and at its lowest 2 and 3.15 kHz (34 dB). For the comparisons of types of HPDs, 32 of NRR HPD showed lower averaged intelligibility scores in all testing SNR conditions. and transmitted securely. <]/Prev 738733/XRefStm 1627>>
Sound source identification with ANR earmuffs. Based on inclusion criteria, 20 articles were chosen and then analyzed. Heterogeneity (genuine differences underlying the results of the studies) [28] across the articles was identified using the Higgins I2-statistics and Cochrans Q-test. Abel S.M., Sass-Kortsak A., Kielar A. The background noise was presented in three different SNR conditions (i.e., quiet, 6 and 12 dB). When averaged across all stimuli and locations, the mean response time for correct responses in the unoccluded condition (mean: 1.58s, SD: 0.76) was not different from the mean response time to errors (mean: 1.64s, SD: 0.81). [(accessed on 7 April 2021)]. The mean noise attenuation for 60 ears at all frequencies was lower than the manufacturers rating. There were no significant differences between the study quality scores (2 = 3.7536, df = 19, p > 0.05). 0000054341 00000 n
The averaged relative HINT scores indicated that the acoustic HPD showed 1.1 (SD: 1.9) relative HINT score which was higher than the electronic HPD (mean: 0.4, SD: 1.2) at 75 dB SPL. Todd is a Marine veteran of the Iraq War. Manning C., Mermagen T., Scharine A. Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mulrow C.D., Shamseer L., Tetzlaff J.M., Akl E.A., Brennan S.E., et al. 0000074364 00000 n
Efficacy of individual computer-based auditory training for people with hearing loss: A systematic review of the evidence. 0000015745 00000 n
Dastpaak H., Alimohammadi I., jalal Sameni S., Abolghasemi J., Vosoughi S. Effects of earplug hearing protectors on the intelligibility of Persian words in noisy environments. 1Laboratory of Hearing and Technology, Research Institute of Audiology and Speech Pathology, College of Natural Sciences, Hallym University, Chuncheon 24252, Korea; moc.liamg@456ajqskc, 2Division of Speech Pathology and Audiology, College of Natural Sciences, Hallym University, Chuncheon 24252, Korea. To identify the results of the meta-analysis more clearly, a subgroup analysis (i.e., attenuation, sound localization, and speech perception) was conducted. Four stimuli (i.e., two successive transient clicks of a semiautomatic handgun being loaded, the double ring of a telephone with a mechanical ringer, and electronically generated FM tone bursts at 0.5 and 4 kHz) and four HPDs (i.e., electronic earmuffs, dynamic level compression protectors, action ear sport, and unoccluded) were used. 0000009528 00000 n
Marine Corps Systems Command began fielding the hearing enhancement devices in July to infantry Marines. trailer
The Effect of Hearing-Protection Devices on Auditory Situational Awareness and Listening Effort. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement [14] and the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) of Cochrane Collaboration [15] were used as a methodology that commonly processes the systematic search for and meta-analysis of published articles and their review was reported. Furthermore, the performance of sound localization and speech perception were not negatively affected for those users wearing the HPDs. All tested HPDs significantly degraded localization performance relative to control (unoccluded) condition. Mean azimuth errors were analyzed using a 3 (hearing protector) 3 (source elevation) repeated-measures ANOVA, employing the HuynhFeldt correction, which revealed significant main effects of hearing protector, [F(2,10) = 29.94, All simple main effects of the hearing protector factor were statistically significant (, Ten normal hearing adults (mean age: 29.5 years). An ANOVA indicated that there were significant effects for ear condition [F(2,40) = 5.6. reported on the benefits of bone-conduction HPDs for tinnitus patients [27]. 2018. The active HPD showed a mean decrement in performance of 1725% compared to unprotected listening across the two noises. The summarized results of the reviewed studies according to the PICOS criteria are displayed in Table 3. A two-way ANOVA demonstrated that there were significant main effects for HPD [F(4,48) = 3.716. Simply, in terms of the latest technology of HPDs, active noise reduction HPDs may be better than the HPDs in terms of passive noise reduction. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Compared to non-customized earplugs, customized earplugs showed significantly better consistency of attenuation values at frequency ranges of 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz. Abel S.M., Paik J.S. Consistency of attenuation across multiple fittings of custom and non-custom earplugs. 0000054922 00000 n
The included articles were identified to determine whether their data were suitable for meta-analysis. Response accuracy (%) and search time (sec), For response accuracy, repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that neither of the main effects nor the interaction was found to be statistically significant (. Although HPDs seem to be a passive method of noise control, they are the most practical and good enough when appropriately fitted for a correct size and have received adequate maintenance [5,6]. Twelve young adults (age range18 to 30 years) and twelve older adults (age range40 to 55 years) with normal hearing. Publishers Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Repeated-measures of ANOVA conducted on mean PAR showed the training to be statistically significant [F(1,29) = 11.77. The funnel plot is a kind of scatter plot consisting of a y-axis for the sample size of studies and an x-axis for the effect size. For the speech perception test, two levels of noise (75 and 90 dB SPL) were used. The authors declare no conflict of interest. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the Conservation and management of hearing loss in musicians. about navigating our updated article layout. Asymmetrical graph of funnel plot indicating publication bias (B). This work was supported by the Hallym University Research Fund (HRF-202109-006). Additionally, the ANR muff produced significantly lower masked thresholds than the passive muff did. Then, only 687 articles were accessed to review their full texts at the eligibility stage. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Thirty adults with normal hearing (age range20 to 58 years). A total of forty-five adults (age of 23 to 81 years) participated. The unoccluded condition had the lowest search time, regardless of the set size. The custom-made diotic sound transmission earmuff (66.3%) and foam earplug (64.6%) showed similar percentages of correctness. Cochrans Q-test indicated a 95% statistical significance level (p < 0.05). Gigure C., Laroche C., Vaillancourt V. The interaction of hearing loss and level-dependent hearing protection on speech recognition in noise. Moreover, the effects of user training were significant at three testing frequencies (i.e., 250, 500, and 1000 Hz). Unlikely for the passive HPD, an active HPD with activation of level-dependent function showed only a small effect on performance and a mean benefit of 67%. For a systematic review and meta-analysis, standardized mean differences (SMDs) and effect size were calculated using a random-effect model.