Laboratory performance of the single-sided E-A-R&reg combat arms hearing protective earplug
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the effect of wearing conventional and passive level-dependent hearing protection earplugs on hearing and horizontal plane sound source identification, in quiet.A single device was tested that incorporated these as separate modes of operation.Ten males and ten females with normal hearing participated.Each was tested with the ears unoccluded and fitted binaurally with the device in each mode.Measurements were made of free-field hearing thresholds for one-third octave noise bands with centre frequencies ranging from 250 Hz to 8000 Hz and the ability to discriminate among eight speakers surrounding the subject at a distance of 1 metre.The stimulus was a 300-ms, 75-dB SPL white noise burst.The sound attenuation was derived from the hearing thresholds.With the device in the conventional mode, mean thresholds were in the range of 36.2 dB to 53.3 dB SPL, signifying an induced mild hearing loss.In the level-dependent mode, thresholds were at most 37.9 dB SPL.Mean attenuation values were generally similar to the manufacturer's specifications.There was no effect of gender.Percent correct for sound source identification decreased by 40% with the conventional mode and by 20% with the level-dependent mode.Degree of attention, then appears to be a key factor for outcome.However, an analysis of error types showed that the level-dependent mode of operation resulted in a frontward bias that was similar to that observed previously with a device incorporating external microphones for enhanced communication. s o m m a i r eLe but de cet article est de comparer l'effet du port de bouchons conventionnels à celui de bouchons passifs avec atténuation dépendante du niveau acoustique sur l 'audition et l 'identification de sources sonores dans le plan horizontal dans le silence.Un protecteur permettant ces deux modes d 'opération a été étudié auprès de dix hommes et dix femmes ayant une audition normale.Chaque individu a été évalué sans protection auditive et avec port binaural du protecteur dans chacun des deux modes.Les seuils auditifs en champ libre ont été mesurés pour des bandes de bruits tiers d 'octave centrées sur des fréquences entrent 250 Hz et 8000 Hz, ainsi que la capacité à discriminer huit haut-parleurs placés à un mètre autour des participants.Le stimulus était d 'une durée de 300 ms et était présenté à 75 dB SPL.Le degré d 'atténuation a été déduit à partir des seuils auditifs.En mode conventionnel, des seuils moyens entre 36.2 et 53.3 dB SPL ont été obtenus, équivalent à une perte auditive de degré léger.En mode avec atténuation dépendante du niveau, les seuils auditifs n 'ont pas dépassés 37.9 dB SPL.Les valeurs moyennes d 'atténuation obtenues étaient en général similaires aux données fournies par le fabricant.Aucun effet du genre n 'a été observé.Comparativement à la condition sans protection auditive, le pourcentage d 'identifications correctes de la source sonore avec port du protecteur a chuté par 40% en mode conventionnel et par 20% en mode avec atténuation dépendante du niveau.Le degré d 'atténuation semble donc être un facteur clé pour expliquer les résultats obtenus.Par contre, une analyse du type d 'erreurs commises en mode avec atténuation dépendante du niveau a démontré un biais pour des réponses vers l 'avant similaire à celui obtenu antérieurement avec un protecteur incorporant des microphones externes pour améliorer la communication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".