Title page for ETD etd-09132011-213957

Type of Document

Dissertation

Author

Talcott, Kristen Alanna

Author's Email Address

kristen.talcott@gmail.com

URN

etd-09132011-213957

Title

An In-Field Experiment on the Effects of Hearing Protection/Enhancement Devices and Military Vehicle Noise on Auditory Localization of a Gunshot in Azimuth

Degree

PhD

Department

Industrial and Systems Engineering

Advisory Committee

Advisor Name	Title
Casali, John G.	Committee Chair
Kleiner, Brian M.	Committee Member
Smith-Jackson, Tonya L.	Committee Member
Williams, Henry	Committee Member

Keywords

Noise
Gunshot
Impulse
Hearing Protection
Auditory Localization

Date of Defense

2011-08-30

Availability

unrestricted

Abstract

Noise-induced hearing loss and tinnitus are the two most prevalent service-connected disabilities for veterans receiving compensation (Department of Veterans Affairs, 2010). While it is possible to protect against noise-induced hearing damage with hearing protection devices (HPDs) and hearing protection enhancement devices (HPEDs), military personnel resist using HPDs/HPEDs that compromise their situational awareness, including ability to localize enemy gunfire. Manufacturers of a new generation of “pass-through” level-dependent HPEDs claim these devices preserve normal or near-normal hearing.

A research study was conducted to evaluate localization of suprathreshold gunshot’s report (from blank ammunition) with one passive (3M’s Single-Ended Combat Arms earplug) and three electronic level-dependent HPEDs (Peltor’s Com-Tac II electronic earmuffs and Etymotic’s EB 1 and EB 15 High-Fidelity Electronic BlastPLG earplugs), in comparison to the open ear in an in-field test environment with ambient outdoor noise and in 82 dBA diesel truck noise with nine normal and four impaired hearing participants.

Statistical analysis showed worse localization accuracy and response time with the Com-Tac II earmuffs than with the other tested HPEDs. Performance with all HPEDs was worse than that with the open ear, except on right-left confusions, in which the Com-Tac II stood alone as worst, and in response time, for which the EB 1 earplug was equivalent to the open ear. There was no significant main effect of noise level. There was generally no significant effect of hearing ability. However, participants with impaired hearing had more right-left confusions than those with normal hearing. Subjective ratings related to localization generally corroborated objective localization performance.

Three follow-up experiments were performed: (1) an assessment of the effect of microphone position on localization with the EB 15, which showed a limited advantage when the microphone was positioned near the opening of the ear canal compared to when it was facing outwards; (2) an assessment of Etymotic’s QuickSIN test as a predictor localization performance, which showed little correlation with localization performance; and (3) an assessment of the acoustic properties of the experiment site, which was inconclusive with regards to the direction of dominant sound energy from gunshots from each of the shooter positions.

Files

Filename		Size	Approximate Download Time (Hours:Minutes:Seconds)
Filename		Size	28.8 Modem	56K Modem	ISDN (64 Kb)	ISDN (128 Kb)	Higher-speed Access
	Talcott_KA_D_2011.pdf	40.57 Mb	03:07:50	01:36:36	01:24:31	00:42:15	00:03:36
	Talcott_KA_IRB.pdf	714.80 Kb	00:03:18	00:01:42	00:01:29	00:00:44	00:00:03
	Talcott_KA_Permissions.pdf	381.44 Kb	00:01:45	00:00:54	00:00:47	00:00:23	00:00:02