Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Sound localization with hearing protectors

S M Abel1, N M Armstrong

  • 1Department of Otolaryngology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

The Journal of Otolaryngology
|October 1, 1993
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The effect of missing data and imputation on the detection of bias in cognitive testing using differential item functioning methods.

BMC medical research methodology·2022
Same author

Assessing Bias in Cognitive Testing for Older Adults with Sensory Impairment: An Analysis of Differential Item Functioning in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study on Aging (BLSA) and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Neurocognitive Study (ARIC-NCS).

Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS·2021
Same author

Sound source identification with ANR earmuffs.

Noise & health·2005
Same author

The effects of background noise on cognitive performance during a 70 hour simulation of conditions aboard the International Space Station.

Noise & health·2004
Same author

The effect of the audallion BEAMformer noise reduction preprocessor on sound localization for cochlear implant users.

Ear and hearing·2002
Same author

The role of high-frequency hearing in age-related speech understanding deficits.

Scandinavian audiology·2000
Same journal

Primary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the submandibular gland: unique presentation and surprising treatment response.

The Journal of otolaryngology·2008
Same journal

Hearing recovery after meningitis.

The Journal of otolaryngology·2008
Same journal

Endoscopic transnasal sphenopalatine arterial ligation for intractable posterior epistaxis in a young child.

The Journal of otolaryngology·2008
Same journal

[Non-functional parathyroid cyst].

The Journal of otolaryngology·2008
Same journal

Cacosmia secondary to an olfactory groove meningioma.

The Journal of otolaryngology·2008
Same journal

Hemangioma of the vocal cords: review of two cases.

The Journal of otolaryngology·2008
See all related articles

Hearing protection devices reduce sound localization accuracy, especially at higher frequencies. Performance varied among different protector types, with level-dependent muffs showing the most significant impact at 4000 Hz.

Area of Science:

  • Audiology
  • Acoustics
  • Occupational Health

Background:

  • Sound localization is crucial for auditory perception and situational awareness.
  • Hearing protective devices (HPDs) are essential for preventing noise-induced hearing loss but may affect auditory spatial abilities.
  • Understanding the impact of different HPDs on sound localization is vital for user safety and performance.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the effect of different hearing protective devices on sound localization in normal-hearing individuals.
  • To compare the performance of level-dependent stereophonic muffs with conventional level-independent muffs and earplugs.
  • To assess how stimulus frequency and background noise influence sound localization with HPDs.

Main Methods:

  • Normal-hearing subjects participated in a sound localization task while wearing three types of HPDs: level-dependent muffs, conventional muffs, and earplugs.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Sound localization was tested using six speakers in the horizontal plane with noise bands centered at 500 Hz and 4000 Hz.
  • Experiments were conducted in both quiet and a white noise background (65 dB SPL).

    • Main Results:

    • At 500 Hz, all HPDs reduced localization accuracy by approximately 20%, with no significant difference between protector types.
    • At 4000 Hz, sound localization was significantly impaired with HPDs, particularly with level-dependent muffs.
    • Error patterns (front/back vs. right/left) varied based on stimulus frequency, speaker location, and the type of HPD used.

    Conclusions:

    • Hearing protective devices can degrade sound localization abilities, with effects varying by frequency and device type.
    • Level-dependent muffs showed a greater negative impact on high-frequency sound localization compared to conventional devices.
    • The presence of background noise did not significantly affect protected listening performance for the tested frequencies.