Active noise reduction was first proposed as a solution for environmental noise over fifty years ago. The use of active noise reduction (ANR) systems, however, was not demonstrated until much later. Recent advances in technology have made the use of active noise reduction systems in personal hearing protection devices (HPDs) practical. Through the use of advanced electronics technology, ANR equipped devices offer the potential to provide increased low frequency attenuation for hearing conservation applications. In order to use ANR equipped devices in an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sanctioned hearing conservation program, a testing standard for ANR equipped HPDs needs to be developed. Existing HPD testing standards offer the most promise for developing an acceptable standard for testing ANR-equipped HPDs. The microphone in real ear (MIRE) testing method is one method that offers a practical method for determining the performance of ANR devices for use in hearing conservation programs. A modified version of this method was successfully used in this study to determine the performance profile of an open-back ANR equipped headset. The results of this and other studies that have used a modified MIRE testing method can be used to support the acceptance of this method as the basis of an approved standard for testing ANR-equipped hearing protection devices. / Master of Science

A human factors experiment was conducted to assess whether a reduction in noise at the ear would cause an improvement in speech intelligibility, an improvement in cognitive performance, and/or a reduction in subjective mental workload. Modified Rhyme Test (MRT) stimuli were used to determine intelligibility and specific tests within the Complex Cognitive Assessment Battery (CCAB) were used to assess cognitive performance. The tests chosen from the CCAB were: Tower Puzzle, Logical Relations, and Numbers and Words. These tests were chosen because of the specific set of cognitive functions that they measure which corresponded to command and control tasks. Participants performed the MRT and CCAB tests simultaneously in a 114 dBA noise environment at two speech levels, 83 dB (linear) and 96 dB (linear), using two communication microphones, Gentex Model 1453 and a prototype communication microphone developed by Adaptive Technologies Inc. (ATI). The noise used in the experiment was from a recording made inside a US Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Subjective mental workload was assessed using the NASA-TLX and Modified Cooper-Harper (MCH) immediately after the experiment. Results indicated that the communication microphone developed by ATI reduced the noise level at the ear better than the current Gentex microphone. However, the Gentex microphone produced significantly higher speech intelligibility scores at the 96 dB speech level. Cognitive performance scores significantly improved with increasing speech level for both communication microphones, with the ATI microphone having the advantage at 83 dB and the Gentex at 96 dB. The results also indicated that the main effects of speech level and communication microphone did not have an effect on subjective mental workload. A correlation analysis revealed that there was a positive relationship between the two workload measurement tools, indicating that either scale may be used to assess mental workload. Therefore, it was concluded that the MCH could have been used instead of the NASA-TLX, since the overall workload score was of interest. / Ph. D.

Among the many occupational hazards to which Army rotary-wing aviators are exposed is intense noise generated from the aircraft. The potential for permanent hearing loss and difficulty communicating in helicopter noise is well known; an appropriate way to evaluate a hearing-impaired pilot's safety risk due to hearing loss is not as well known. Previous research has studied communication ability in helicopter cockpit noise under different headsets, but there are not conclusive data on the combined effects of degraded speech intelligibility due to noise and flight workload under the headset technology currently available to Army helicopter pilots. In particular, there is a scarcity of information on pilots with hearing loss. Currently, Army Aeromedical standards stipulate audiometric threshold criteria for rated helicopter pilots to ensure their safe flying. If the standard is not met, a flight waiver for hearing is generally granted if the pilot demonstrates good (at least 84%) binaural word recognition ability in a quiet environment. A research study was conducted to evaluate Army helicopter pilot performance with regard to flight workload, communication signal quality, headset configuration, and pilot hearing ability. Objectives of the study included the ability to refine current Army audiometric hearing waiver criteria, and to yield data on which to base flight and headset selection recommendations for pilots. In general, it was believed that flight performance and ratings of situation awareness (SA) would decrease as flight workload increased and communication signal quality decreased, and that assistive communication devices coupled with headsets would afford improved flight performance over their passive counterpart. It was also hypothesized that normal-hearing pilots would perform better than hearing-impaired pilots would. Twenty Army helicopter pilots (one group of 10 pilots without a hearing waiver and one group of 10 pilots with a hearing waiver) participated in this study. The pilots flew three flights in a Black Hawk flight simulator, each with a different headset configuration and with varying flight workload levels and varying air traffic control (ATC) communication signal quality. Objective flight performance parameters of heading, altitude, and airspeed deviation and ATC command readbacks were measured. Additionally, measurements were taken on subjective measures of workload, SA, and headset comfort/speech intelligibility. Experimental results partially supported the research hypotheses. Results indicated that flight performance and ratings of SA were negatively affected by increased flight workload and decreased communication signal quality for both groups of pilots. Results also showed that a passive headset/passive earplug combination use by the hearing-impaired group of pilots led to degradation of certain flight performance parameters and lower ratings of SA than the headsets equipped with assistive communication technology; however, the same headset effect was not seen with the group of normal-hearing pilots. This study yielded results that support a conclusion that factors other than hearing thresholds and word recognition ability in a quiet environment should be considered when evaluating Army helicopter pilots flight safety with regard to hearing sensitivity. Rather, the synergistic effects of flight workload and communication signal quality with individual hearing levels should be considered when making continued flight recommendations and headset choice recommendations. Results also support a recommendation requiring hearing-impaired pilots to use assistive communication technology and not be permitted to fly with passive headset devices. Further research should include a functional hearing assessment in which pilot hearing requirements are determined and individual hearing abilities are compared to the requirements. / Ph. D.

Currently in the United States, Active Noise Reduction (ANR) headphones cannot be tested and labeled as hearing protection devices (HPDs) due to inherent limitations with the existing psychophysical headphone testing standard, real-ear attenuation at threshold (REAT). This research focused on the use of a standard, for physical, microphone-in-real-ear testing, (MIRE, ANSI S12.42-1995), to determine if MIRE may be appropriately used to measure the total attenuation (i.e., passive + active) of ANR headphones. The REAT " Method B, Subject-Fit protocol," ANSI S12.6-1997(R2002), was also used to assess passive attenuation (and used for comparison with the MIRE data), as this is the current standard for passive Headphone attenuation testing. The MIRE protocol currently does not specify a standardized location for measurement microphone placement. Prior research is mixed as to the potential benefits and shortcomings of placing the measurement microphone outside versus inside the ear canal. This study captured and compared acoustic spectral data at three different microphone locations: in concha, in ear canal-shallow depth, and in ear canal-deep depth (with a probe tube microphone positioned near the tympanic membrane), using human test participants and five ANR headphones of differing design. Results indicate that the MIRE protocol may be used to supplant the REAT protocol for the measurement of passive attenuation, although differences were observed at the lowest-tested frequency of 125 Hz. Microphone placement analysis revealed no significant difference among the three locations specified, with a noted caveat for the probe tube microphone location at the highest tested frequency of 8000 Hz. Overall findings may be useful to standards-making committees for evaluating a viable solution and standardized method for testing and labeling ANR headphones for use as hearing protection devices. Microphone placement results may assist the practitioner in determining where to place measurement microphones to best suit their particular needs when using MIRE. Discussion includes an in-depth interpretation of the data, comparisons within and between each protocol, and recommendations for further avenues to explore based on the data presented. / Ph. D.

Researchers have long known that general aviation (GA) aircraft exhibit some of the most intense and potentially damaging sound environments to a pilot's hearing. Yet, another potentially more ominous result of this noise-intense environment is the masking of the radio communications. Radio communications must remain intelligible, as they are imperative to the safe and efficient functioning of the airspace, especially the airspace surrounding our busiest airports, Class B and Class C. However, the high amplitude, low frequency noise dominating the GA cockpit causes an upward spreading of masking with such inference that it renders radio communications almost totally unintelligible, unless the pilot is wearing a communications headset. Even with a headset, some researchers have stated that the noise and masking effects overcome the headset performance and still threaten the pilot's hearing and overall safety while in the aircraft. In reaction to this situation, this experiment sought to investigate the effects which active noise reduction (ANR) headsets have on the permissible exposure levels (PELs), speech intelligibility, workload, and ultimately the pilot's performance inside the cockpit. Eight instrument-rated pilot participants flew through different flight tasks of varying levels and types of workload embedded in four 3.5 hour flight scenarios while wearing four different headsets. The 3.5 hours were considered long duration due the instrument conditions, severe weather conditions, difficult flight tasks, and the fatiguing effects of a high intensity noise environment. The noise intensity and spectrum in the simulator facility were specifically calibrated to mimic those of a Cessna 172. Speech intelligibility of radio communications was modified using the Speech Transmission Index (STI), while measures of flight performance and workload were collected to examine any relationships between workload, speech intelligibility, performance, and type of headset. It is believed that the low frequency attenuation advantages afforded by the ANR headset decreased the signal-to-noise ratio, thereby increasing speech intelligibility for the pilot. This increase may positively affect workload and flight performance. Estimates of subjective preference and comfort were also collected and analyzed for relevant relationships. The results of the experiment supported the above hypotheses. It was found that headsets which incorporate ANR technology do increase speech intelligibility which has a direct inverse influence on workload. For example, an increase in speech intelligibility is seen with a concomitant decrease in pilot workload across all types and levels of workload. Furthermore, flight task performance results show that the pilot's headset can facilitate safer flight performance. However, the factors that influence performance are more numerous and complex than those that affect speech intelligibility or workload. Factors such as the operational performance of the communications system in the headset, in addition to the ANR technology, were determined to be highly influential factors in pilot performance. This study has concluded that the pilot's headset has received much research and design attention as a noise attenuation device. However, it has been almost completely overlooked as a tool which could be used to facilitate the safety and performance of a general aviation flight. More research should focus on identifying and optimizing the headset components which contribute most to the results demonstrated in this experiment. The pilot's headset is a component of the aviation system which could economically improve the safety of the entire system. / Ph. D.

The research described herein was undertaken to determine how masked thresholds changed when individuals wore an active noise reduction (ANR) hearing protection device (HPD), a passive HPD, or no HPD. An ANR earmuff, a passive earmuff, and a user-molded foam earplug were tested in two types of noises (pink and red) at two different noise levels (85 dBA and 100 dBA). The signal used was an industry-standard backup alarm. The experimental design was completely within-subjects. An ascending method of limits was used to obtain 15-20 correct positive responses, which were then averaged to obtain the masked thresholds for each treatment condition. A visual probability monitoring task was incorporated in the experimental design to provide a loading task for the participants. In addition to masked thresholds, comfort and mental workload were assessed. Finally, participants were asked to rank each of the three HPDs with respect to their perceived ability to facilitate hearing the signal in noise. Results indicated that in 85 dBA noise, masked thresholds were lower when hearing protection devices were worn, compared to the unoccluded condition. Additionally, the results indicated that the ANR device provided a significant advantage (lower masked thresholds) over the passive earmuff in the low-frequency biased red noise (across both noise levels) and the 100 dBA noise level (across both noise spectra). However, the ANR earmuff exhibited no significant advantage over the user-molded foam earplug in any of the conditions. Rather, the user-molded foam earplug produced significantly lower masked thresholds at 100 dBA. The results also indicated that there was no difference between the three devices in their perceived ability to facilitate detection of the signal. There was also not a significant difference in comfort ratings between the three HPDs, although there were several complaints about the comfort of the ANR earmuff during the experiment. / Master of Science

No description available.