Self-report and long-term field measures of MP3 player use: How accurate is self-report?

Portnuff, Cory; Fligor, Brian J.; Arehart, Kathryn H.

doi:10.3109/14992027.2012.745649

Cited by 37 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…17 The study found a decrease in mean listening and exposure levels over time, with those considered to be listening at risky levels dropping from 25 to 17% between 2002 and 2008. These figures related to users age 14 to 59 years but are within the range reported for teenage users by Portnuff and colleagues, 18 who found 14% of the 29 teenage PLD users tested were listening at risky levels. Other studies suggest the risk from PLDs may be greater than this.…”

Section: Noise-induced Hearing Loss (Nihl)supporting

confidence: 84%

“…These results support previous findings that background noise affects listening levels. [18][19][20] It should be noted, however, that those activities associated with the highest listening levels (e.g., exercise-related activities) were among those with the lowest levels of participation (hours per month). Providing hearing health education to PLD users, therefore, needs to reference not only activities with high listening volumes but also those with a high listening durations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Personal Listening Devices in Australia: Patterns of Use and Levels of Risk

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Personal listening devices (PLDs) have the potential to increase the risk of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) for users. The present study aimed to investigate the nature and extent of the risk posed, by describing the user profile of a PLD population, identifying listening habits of that population, and examining whether PLD risk status is associated with hearing damage. A sample of 4,185 Australian PLD users completed an online survey about listening behaviors and hearing health. Listeners were characterized as low, high, or very high-risk based on daily noise dose estimates calculated from self-reported listening volume and durations. Listening patterns and hearing difficulties were examined in relation to risk status. Results indicated differences in listening volumes and durations with respect to age, with higher listening volumes reported for environments with greater background noise. Fifteen percent of participants' usage was classified as posing a potential risk to hearing, with a significantly greater proportion of younger people in higher-risk categories. Forty-one percent of participants reported feeling they have a hearing loss, with ∼20% reporting difficulties with speech in noise. For 18- to 35-year-olds, higher-risk status was associated with a greater proportion of self-reported hearing difficulties, including perceived poorer speech perception. These results have implications for hearing health promotion activities and suggest that messages should focus on either volume levels or durations depending on the particular activity in which the PLD is used. In addition, the results underline the importance of placing PLD exposure in the context of individuals' wider noise exposure. Although PLD use alone is not placing the majority of users at risk, it may be increasing the likelihood that individuals' cumulative noise exposure will exceed safe levels.

show abstract

Section: Noise-induced Hearing Loss (Nihl)supporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personal Listening Devices in Australia: Patterns of Use and Levels of Risk

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Estimating the sound level delivered to the ear by listening to portable devices is difficult due to the variability introduced by the device, the specific headphones used and the extent to which the headphones have decreased in efficiency over time. Commonly reported maximum output values are 97–107 dBA, with an average around 100 dBA (Portnuff et al., 2013). For the current study, participants were asked to imagine walking down the a busy high street and to describe whether they preferred to a) hear nothing except their own music, b) be generally aware of what is going on around them, such as traffic and sirens, but to be able to clearly hear their music over people talking around them, or c) hear everything that is present in the environment as they do not like having their sense of awareness compromised by their music.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of noise exposure on young adults with normal audiograms I: Electrophysiology

Prendergast

Guest

Munro³

et al. 2017

Hearing Research

194

204

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy has been demonstrated in numerous rodent studies. In these animal models, the disorder is characterized by a reduction in amplitude of wave I of the auditory brainstem response (ABR) to high-level stimuli, whereas the response at threshold is unaffected. The aim of the present study was to determine if this disorder is prevalent in young adult humans with normal audiometric hearing. One hundred and twenty six participants (75 females) aged 18–36 were tested. Participants had a wide range of lifetime noise exposures as estimated by a structured interview. Audiometric thresholds did not differ across noise exposures up to 8 kHz, although 16-kHz audiometric thresholds were elevated with increasing noise exposure for females but not for males. ABRs were measured in response to high-pass (1.5 kHz) filtered clicks of 80 and 100 dB peSPL. Frequency-following responses (FFRs) were measured to 80 dB SPL pure tones from 240 to 285 Hz, and to 80 dB SPL 4 kHz pure tones amplitude modulated at frequencies from 240 to 285 Hz (transposed tones). The bandwidth of the ABR stimuli and the carrier frequency of the transposed tones were chosen to target the 3–6 kHz characteristic frequency region which is usually associated with noise damage in humans. The results indicate no relation between noise exposure and the amplitude of the ABR. In particular, wave I of the ABR did not decrease with increasing noise exposure as predicted. ABR wave V latency increased with increasing noise exposure for the 80 dB peSPL click. High carrier-frequency (envelope) FFR signal-to-noise ratios decreased as a function of noise exposure in males but not females. However, these correlations were not significant after the effects of age were controlled. The results suggest either that noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy is not a significant problem in young, audiometrically normal adults, or that the ABR and FFR are relatively insensitive to this disorder in young humans, although it is possible that the effects become more pronounced with age.

show abstract

“…Most recently, Portnuff et al (2013) reported on PSP outputs, concluding that a "small but significant" percentage of PSP users reported exposure sufficient to increase the risk of noise injury. This conclusion is consistent with those of earlier reviews, although as noted by Portnuff et al, much higher estimates of risk have been given by some authors.…”

Section: Sound Pressure Level Measurement Of Leisure-noise Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The additive effects of work, nonwork, and purely recreational noise sources must also be seriously considered (Williams 2009). Despite the large volume of data collected in this field, no specific damage-risk criteria for leisure-noise exposure are currently available (Portnuff et al 2013). …”

Section: General Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Leisure-Noise Dilemma

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors undertook a review of the literature, focussing on publications describing the following: (1) Pure tone threshold data for adolescents/young adults; (2) Measurements/estimates of noise exposure from leisure activities; and (3) The relationship between hearing threshold levels (HTLs) and leisure-noise exposure. There is a large volume of published materials relevant to these topics, and opinion among authors regarding the relationship between leisure-noise exposure and HTLs varies significantly. At one extreme is the view that the effects of leisure-noise are minimal. The opposing belief is that as a direct result of leisure-noise exposure, significant HTL shifts and possibly significant hearing disability are occurring in a large (and increasing) proportion of young people. It has been claimed that behaviors relating to leisure-noise are "as threatening to young people's health as more traditional risk behaviors" (, p. 55). This view has been reiterated by the popular media. This review revealed that while sufficient data confirm that some leisure pursuits provide potentially hazardous noise levels, the nature of the exposure-injury relationship for leisure-noise is yet to be determined. Specific information about the quality-of-life effects of threshold shift related to leisure-noise exposure is also lacking. The scope and limitations of a large sample of relevant publications and an overview of the methodological issues in this area of research are briefly presented. Considerations for future research are raised.

show abstract

Self-report and long-term field measures of MP3 player use: How accurate is self-report?

Cited by 37 publications

References 8 publications

Personal Listening Devices in Australia: Patterns of Use and Levels of Risk

Personal Listening Devices in Australia: Patterns of Use and Levels of Risk

Effects of noise exposure on young adults with normal audiograms I: Electrophysiology

The Leisure-Noise Dilemma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About