Azimuthal auditory localization of gunshots in a realistic field environment: Effects of open-ear versus hearing protection-enhancement devices (HPEDs), military vehicle noise, and hearing impairment
Azimuthal auditory localization of gunshots in a realistic field environment: Effects of open-ear versus hearing protection-enhancement devices (HPEDs), military vehicle noise, and hearing impairment
复制标题
DOI：
10.3109/14992027.2011.631591
复制
发表时间：
2012-02-01
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Killion, Mead C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Talcott, Kristen A.;Casali, John G.;Killion, Mead C.
目的：进行了一项对照现场实验，以评估本地化的阈上枪声报告（从空白墨盒）与听力保护增强设备（HPED）相比，开放的耳朵与环境室外噪声和82分贝柴油军用重型卡车噪声。设计：五个措施的定位精度和响应时间的八个射手位置的方位角进行了测量。研究样本：对9名听力正常和4名听力受损的参与者进行了测试。结果如下：统计分析显示，电子耳罩（Peltor Com-Tac II（TM）处于全增益位置）的准确性和响应时间性能比其他测试的HPED（Etymotic EB 1和EB 15 High-Fidelity Electronic BlastPLG（TM）电子耳塞，均设置为Lo增益位置;和3 M Single-Ended Combat Arms（TM）无源耳塞，处于电平相关的“打开”位置）更差。所有HPED的性能都比开放耳差，除了左右混淆，其中耳罩单独最差，以及响应时间，EB 1与开放耳相当。噪声对运动成绩没有显著的主效应。听力障碍增加左右混淆。与本地化相关的主观评级通常证实了客观的本地化性能。结论：所测试的HPED均未保持“正常”定位性能。
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 (TM) in full gain position) than with the other tested HPEDs (Etymotic EB 1 and EB 15 High-Fidelity Electronic BlastPLG (TM) electronic earplugs, both set to Lo gain positions; and 3M Single-Ended Combat Arms (TM) 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.