Millions of people are exposed to loud music, either as musicians or as recreational consumers of music. Audiologists are in the best position to address hearing conservation problems for musicians and music listeners. However, the issue of music-induced hearing loss (MIHL) has unique challenges. Specifically, estimates of the size of the populations have likely underestimated the number of musicians at risk for MIHL. In addition, performance levels for musicians have been measured to be as loud as 109 dBA, and both professional and recreational listening devices can deliver sounds as loud as 130 dBA. However, compliance with conservation recommendations remains poor for a variety of reasons, despite increased awareness through educational campaigns. Moreover, methods to mediate exposure have had limited successes for both groups. The purpose of this paper is to assess the scope of the problem and the successes of current conservation strategies with the aim of inspiring renewed interest and solutions to the problems helping musicians and consumers protect their hearing.

Introduction:The viability of hearing protection device (HPD) verification (i.e., fit-testing) on a large scale was investigated to address this gap in a military accession environment.Materials and Methods:Personal Attenuation Ratings (PARs) following self-fitted (SELF-Fit) HPDs were acquired from 320 US Marine Corps training recruits (87.5% male, 12.5% female) across four test protocols (1-, 3-, 5-, and 7- frequency). SELF-Fit failures received follow-up to assess potential causes. Follow-up PARs were acquired (Experimenter fit [EXP-Fit], followed by Subject re-fit [SUB Re-Fit]). EXP-Fit was intended to provide a perception (dubbed “ear canal muscle memory”) of what a correctly fitted HPD should feel like. SUB Re-Fit was completed following EXP-Fit to determine whether a training recruit could duplicate EXP-Fit on her/his own without assistance.Results:A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (N=320) showed that SELF-Fit means differed significantly between protocols (P < 0.001). Post-hoc analyses showed that the 1-freq SELF-Fit mean was significantly lower than all other protocols (P < 0.03) by 5.6 dB or more. No difference was found between the multi-frequency protocols. For recruits who were followed up with EXP-Fit (n=79), across all protocols, a significant (P < 0.001) mean improvement of 25.68 dB (10.99) was found, but PARs did not differ (P = 0.99) between EXP-Fit protocols. For recruits in the 3-freq and 5-freq protocol groups who experienced all three PAR test methods (n=33), PAR methods differed (P < 0.001) but no method by protocol interaction was found (P = 0.46). Post hoc tests showed that both EXP-Fit and SUB Re-Fit had significantly better attenuation than SELF-Fit (P < 0.001), but no difference was found between EXPFit and SUB Re-Fit (P = 0.59). For SELF-Fit, the 1-freq protocol resulted in a 35% pass rate, whereas the 3-, 5-, and 7-freq protocols resulted in >60% pass rates. Results showed that once recruits experienced how HPDs should feel when inserted correctly, they were able to properly replicate the procedure with similar results to the expert fit suggesting “ear canal muscle memory” may be a viable training strategy concomitant with HPD verification. Fit-test duration was also measured to examine the tradeoff between results accuracy and time required to complete each protocol.Discussion:Results from this study showed the critical importance of initial selection and fitting of HPDs followed by verification (i.e., fit-testing) at Navy and Marine Corps accession points. Achieving adequate protection from an HPD is fundamentally dependent on obtaining proper fit of the issued HPD as well as the quality of training recruits receive regarding HPD use.

These results suggest caution when selecting FS algorithms clinically since different models can demonstrate similar AGBF when averaging across ears, but result in quite different AGBF values in a single individual ear.

Objective: The purpose of this fit-testing study in the field was to systematically compare three Hearing Protection Device (HPD) fit-training methods and determine whether they differ in the acquisition of HPD fitting skill and resulting amount of earplug attenuation. Design: Subjects were randomly assigned to receive HPD fit-training using one of three training methods: current, experiential HPD (eHPD), and integrated. Personal Attenuation Ratings (PARs) were acquired via HPD fit-testing and used to verify attenuations pre-and post-training. Study Sample: US Marine training recruits (n ¼ 341) identified via HPD fit-testing for remedial HPD fittraining and assigned to three cohorts. Results: The post-training HPD fittest passing rate differed by training method, with pass rates ranging from 50% (current) to nearly 92% (eHPD). The difference between group delta PAR values were significantly higher (>9 dB) in both the eHPD and integrated methods compared to the current method. Conclusion: The HPD fit-training methods that teach "what right feels like" (eHPD and integrated) provided a greater number of trainees with the skill to achieve noise attenuation values required for impulse noise exposures encountered during basic training. The attenuation achieved by those methods was significantly greater than the current training method.

National and international regulatory and consensus standards setting bodies have previously proposed derating hearing protector ratings to provide a better match between ratings determined in a laboratory and the real-world measurements of attenuation for workers. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has proposed a derating scheme that depends upon the type of protector. This paper examines four real-world studies where personal attenuation ratings (PARs) were measured at least twice, before and after an intervention in earplug fitting techniques. Results from these studies indicate that individualized earplug fitting training dramatically improves a worker’s achieved PAR value. Additionally, derating schemes fail to accurately predict the majority of achieved PARs. Because hearing protector fit testing systems are now readily available for use in the workplace, personal attenuation ratings provide a better estimate of worker noise exposures and are able to identify those persons who need additional instruction in fitting hearing protection devices.