Numerous studies have shown that the reliability of using laboratory measurements to predict individual or even group hearing protector attenuation for occupationally exposed workers is quite poor. This makes it difficult to properly assign hearing protectors when one wishes to closely match attenuation to actual exposure. An alternative is the use of field-measurement methods, a number of which have been proposed and are beginning to be implemented. We examine one of those methods, namely the field microphone-in-real-ear (F-MIRE) approach in which a dual-element microphone probe is used to measure noise reduction by quickly sampling the difference in noise levels outside and under an earplug, with appropriate adjustments to predict real-ear attenuation at threshold (REAT). We report on experiments that validate the ability of one commercially available F-MIRE device to predict the REAT of an earplug fitted identically for two tests. Results are reported on a representative roll-down foam earplug, stemmed-style pod plug, and pre-molded earplug, demonstrating that the 95% confidence level of the Personal Attenuation Rating (PAR) as a function of the number of fits varies from ± 4.4 dB to ± 6.3 dB, depending on the plug type, which can be reduced to ± 3.1 dB to ± 4.5 dB with a single repeat measurement. The added measurement improves precision substantially. However, the largest portion of the error is due to the user's fitting variability and not the uncertainty of the measurement system. Further we evaluated the inherent uncertainty of F-MIRE vs. the putative "gold standard" REAT procedures finding, that F-MIRE measurement uncertainty is less than one-half that of REAT at most test frequencies. An American National Standards Institute (ANSI) working group (S12/WG11) is currently involved in developing methods similar to those in this paper so that procedures for evaluating and reporting uncertainty on all types of field attenuation measurement systems can be standardized. We conclude that the hearing conservationist now has available a portable, convenient, quick, and easy-to-use system that can improve training and motivation of employees, assign hearing protection devices based on noise exposures, and address other management and compliance issues.

With the increase popularity of individual fit testing and miniaturization of electronic components, the Field-Microphone-In-Real-Ear approach (F-MIRE) is becoming more appealing and well suited for estimating hearing protection devices (HPD) attenuation both in laboratory and in "real world" occupational conditions. The approach utilizes two miniature microphones to simultaneously measure the sound pressure levels in the ear canal under the hearing protector, as well as outside of the protector. In this study, experiments on several human subjects were carried out in order to examine the various factors relating the subjective and objective attenuation values. The subjects were first instrumented on both ears with miniature microphones outside and underneath the protector. They were then asked to go through a series of subjective hearing threshold measurements followed by objective microphone recordings using high level diffuse field broadband noises. Earmuffs, earplugs and double-protection were tested for each subject and attenuation values were compared. Additionally, an objective scheme to measure the occlusion effect was developed and tested using subjects' voice as the excitation and the same microphone setup. Results obtained for the attenuation values as well as the occlusion effect levels are presented and discussed.

Over the last few years, several field attenuation measurement systems (FAMS) have been introduced to the industrial marketplace to measure the individual end-user attenuation for some hearing protection devices (HPDs). Although individual measurement is necessary to determine whether a given user is properly protected in his or her real-life noise environment (assuming that the exposure level is known), one unknown remains with a FAMS measurement: how reliable are the predictions made from the instantaneous measurement (over a few minutes), for determining the attenuation that will be achieved later in the field (over months or years) by the end-user who may fit them slightly differently every time? This paper will address that question for one FAMS, the field microphonein-real-ear (F-MIRE) measurement technique, and we will study, in the laboratory, how consistently subjects can fit and refit HPDs without assistance. A new metric, the intra-subject fit variability, will be introduced and will be quantified for custom-molded earplugs as fitted by inexperienced test subjects. This paper will present the experimental process used and statistical calculations performed to quantify the intra-subject fit variability. The number of successive refits required for a given prediction accuracy will also be presented, as well as the uncertainty component associated with the intra-subject fit variability when using an F-MIRE field attenuation measurement system.

The most commonly used methods to measure hearing protectors attenuation can be divided into two categories: psychoacoustical (subjective) and physical (objective) methods. In order to better understand the relationship between these methods, this article presents various factors relating attenuation values obtained with these methods through a series of tests. Experiments on human subjects were carried out where the subjects were instrumented on both ears with miniature microphones outside and underneath the protector. The subjects were then asked to go through a series of hearing threshold measurements (psychoacoustical method) followed by microphone sound recordings using high-level diffuse field broadband noises (physical method). The proposed test protocol allowed obtaining various factors relating the test methods as well as attenuation values and ratings for different protection conditions (open ear, earmuffs, earplugs, and dual protection). Results are presented for three models of passive earmuffs, three models of earplugs and all their combinations as dual hearing protectors. The validity and the relative importance of various terms used to correct the physical attenuation values when comparing with psychoacoustical attenuation values are examined.

No abstract