A critical review of the literature on comfort of hearing protection devices: analysis of the comfort measurement variability

References

• Canadian Standards Association. Hearing protection devices – performance, selection, care, and use; 2014. Toronto (ON): CSA Group. Standard No. CSA Z94.2-14.
   Google Scholar
• Berger EH, Voix J. Hearing protection devices. In Berger EH, Royster LH, Royster JD, Driscoll DP, Layne M, editors. The noise manual. 6th ed. Fairfax (VA): American Industrial Hygiene Association; 2020, Forthcoming.
   Google Scholar
• Doutres O, Sgard F, Terroir J, et al. A critical review of the literature on comfort of hearing protection devices: definition of comfort and identification of its main attributes for earplug types. Int J Audiol. 2019;58:824–833. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2019.1646930
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branson DH, Sweeney MM. Conceptualization and measurement of clothing comfort: toward a metatheory. In Kaiser S, Damhorst ML, editors. Critical linkages in textiles and clothing: theory, method and practice. Monument (CO): ITAA Publishers; 1991. p. 94–105.
   Google Scholar
• Fourt L, Hollies NRS. Clothing comfort and function. New York (NY): Marcel Dekker; 1970.
   Google Scholar
• Epps BW, Casali JG. Hearing protection device comfort and user preference: an investigation and evaluation methodology. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 29th Annual Meeting; 1985 Sep 29–Oct 3. Santa Monica (CA). Baltimore (MD): Human Factors Society; 1985 . p. 814–818.
   Google Scholar
• Brown-Rothwell DJ. The comfort of earplugs – basis for a descriptive model [master’s thesis (unpublished)]. Southampton: University of Southampton; 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Casali JG, Lam ST, Epps BW. Rating and ranking methods for hearing protector wearability. Sound Vib. 1987;21:10–18.
   Google Scholar
• Park M-Y, Casali JG. An empirical study of comfort afforded by various hearing protection devices: laboratory versus field results. Appl Acoust. 1991;34:151–179. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-682X(91)90082-P
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweetland KF. Physical predictors for earmuff comfort [master’s thesis]. Lougborough: Loughborough University of Technology; 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Arezes PM, Abelenda C, Braga AC. An evaluation of comfort afforded by hearing protection devices. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on applied human factors and ergonomics; 2008 July 14–18; Las Vegas (NV), USA: AHFE International; 2008. p. 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Festinger L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press; 1962.
   Google Scholar
• Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:309–319. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbière M, Fraccaroli F. La conception, la validation, la traduction et l'adaptation transculturelle d'outils de mesure: des exemples en santé mentale et travail (Conception, validation and cross-cultural adaptation of measuring tools: examples in mentalhealth and work). In Corbière M, Larivière N, editors. Méthodes qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes: dans la recherche en sciences humaines, sociales et de la santé (Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods in the research of human, social and health sciences). Queébec: Presses de l'Université du Québec; 2014. p. 577–624.
   Google Scholar
• Carillo K, Doutres O, Sgard F. Theoretical investigation of the low frequency fundamental mechanism of the objective occlusion effect induced by bone-conducted stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2020;147:3476–3489. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001237
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tufts JB, Frank T. Speech production in noise with and without hearing protection. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;114:1069–1080. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1592165
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arezes PM, Miguel AS. Hearing protectors acceptability in noisy environments. Ann Occup Hyg. 2002;46:531–536.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gonçalves CGO, Lüders D, Guirado DS, et al. Perception of hearing protectors by workers that participate in hearing preservation programs: a preliminary study. CoDAS. 2015;27:309–318. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20152014139
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bockstael A, Botteldooren D, De Bruyne L, et al. Personal hearing protection and comfort: indispensable but not a matter of course. In: Euronoise 2012 – European Conference on Noise Control. Proceedings of the 9th European Congress on Expo Noise Control Engineering, 2012 Jun 10–14; Prague, Czech Republic: EAA; 2012 . p. 335–339.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper S, Morrill M. Comfort is the secret to success. Occup Health Saf. 2014;83:16–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hsu Y-L, Huang C-C, Yo C-Y, et al. Comfort evaluation of hearing protection. Int J Ind Ergon. 2004;33:543–551. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2004.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivarsson A, Toremalm NG, Brühl P. Eczema, itching, heat and humidity problems – impediments to the effective use of hearing protectors. In: Jonasson HG, editor. Proceedings of Internoise 1990; 1990 Aug 13–15. Göteborg: Institute of Noise Control Engineering ; 1990. p. 1093–1096.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz G, Rublack K, Meister A, et al. Vergleichende untersuchungen der dämmwirkung und der trageeigenschaften von gerhörschutzmitteln am arbeitsplatz [Comparative investigations of the insulating effect and the wearing properties of hearing protector means at the place of employment]. Z Gesamte Hyg Ihre Grenzgeb. 1983;29:93–98. German.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Murphy WJ, Davis RR, Byrne DC, et al. Advanced hearing protector study conducted at General Motors metal fabricating division; Flint Metal Center, Flint, MI; 2004 Jan–2005 Feb. Washington (DC): NIOSH; 2007. (NIOSH report; No. 312-11a).
   Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya SK, Tripathi SR, Kashyap SK. Assessment of comfort of various hearing protection devices (HPD). J Hum Ergol (Tokyo). 1993;22:163–172.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Acton WI. Effects of ear protection on communication. Ann Occup Hyg. 1967;10:423–429.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bockstael A, De Coensel B, Botteldooren D, et al. Speech recognition in noise with active and passive hearing protectors: a comparative study. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011;129:3702–3715. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3575599
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown AD, Beemer BT, Greene NT, et al. Effects of active and passive hearing protection devices on sound source localization, speech recognition, and tone detection. Snyder J, editor. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0136568.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giguère C, Laroche C, Vaillancourt V, et al. Modelling speech intelligibility in the noisy work-place for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners using hearing protectors. Int J Acoust Vib. 2010;15:156–167.
   Google Scholar
• Kryter KD. Effects of ear protective devices on the intelligibility of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1946;18:413–417. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1916380
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suter AH. Communication and job performance in noise: a review. Rockville (MD): American Speech–Language–Hearing Association; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Zheng Y, Giguère C, Laroche C, et al. A psychoacoustical model for specifying the level and spectrum of acoustic warning signals in the workplace. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2007;4:87–98. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620601115768
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zimpfer V, Sarafian D. Impact of hearing protection devices on sound localization performance. Front Neurosci. 2014;8:1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2014.00135
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giguère C, Berger EH. Speech recognition in noise under hearing protection: a computational study of the combined effects of hearing loss and hearing protector attenuation. Int J Audiol. 2016;55:S30–S40. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2015.1129460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giguère C, Berger EH. Modeling the interaction between the hearing protector attenuation function and the hearing loss profile on sound detection in noise. In: Euronoise 2015. Proceedings of the 10th European Congress Expo Noise Control Engineering; 2015 31 May–3 Jun. Maastricht, The Netherlands: EAA-NAG-ABAV; 2015. p. 1967–1972.
   Google Scholar
• Festen JM, Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990;88:1725–1736. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.400247
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casali JG, Park M-Y. Attenuation performance of four hearing protectors under dynamic movement and different user fitting conditions. Hum Factors. 1990;32:9–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089003200102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casali JG, Park M-Y. Effects of work conditions simulated in a laboratory environment and wearer fit on attenuation of slow-recovery foam earplugs. J Sound Vib. 1990;143:153–165. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-460X(90)90574-J
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph A, Punch J, Stephenson M, et al. The effects of training format on earplug performance. Int J Audiol. 2007;46:609–618. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020701438805
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy WJ, Stephenson MR, Byrne DC, et al. Effects of training on hearing protector attenuation. Noise Health. 2011;13:132. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.77215
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abaza A, Hebert C, Harrison MAF. Fast learning ear detection for real-time surveillance IEEE Fourth international conference on biometrics: theory, applications and systems (BTAS 10); 2010 Sept 27–29. Washington (DC): IEEE; 2010. P. 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Verma P. Morphological variations and biometrics of ear: an aid to personal identification. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:138–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee W, Yang X, Jung H, et al. Anthropometric analysis of 3D ear scans of Koreans and Caucasians for ear product design. Ergonomics. 2018;61:1480–1495. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1493150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pirzanski C, Berge B. Ear canal dynamics: facts versus perception. Hear J. 2005;58:50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.0000285785.83490.6c
   Google Scholar
• Wheeler DE, Glorig A. The industrial hygienist and ear protection. Noise Control. 1956;2:45–72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2369177
   Google Scholar
• Cunningham DJ, Robinson A. Cunningham’s textbook of anatomy. 5th ed. New York (NY): William Wood; 1918.
   Google Scholar
• Samelli AG, Gomes RF, Chammas TV, et al. The study of attenuation levels and the comfort of earplugs. Noise Health. 2018;20:112–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas WC, Wright WH, Casali JG. Ear canal measurement: eargage versus ear impressions. 19th Annual NHCA conference. Procedings of the Spectrum, 1994 Feb 17–19; Atlanta: Aurora; 1994. p. 34.
   Google Scholar
• Fu F, Luximon Y. A systematic review on ear anthropometry and its industrial design applications. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind. 2020;30:176–194. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20832
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefanson JRW, Ahroon WA. Evaluation of digital ear scanning for custom hearing protection devices. J Acoust Soc Am. 2019;146:2917–2917. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5137123
   Google Scholar
• Chiou WK, Huang DH, Chen BH. Anthropometric measurements of the external auditory canal for hearing protection earplug. In: International conference on safety management and human factors. Proceedings of AHFE 2016, 2016 Jul 27–31; Walt Disney World, FL. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2016 . P. 163–171.
   Google Scholar
• Yu J-F, Lee K-C, Wang R-H, et al. Anthropometry of external auditory canal by non-contactable measurement. Appl Ergon. 2015;50:50–55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.01.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darkner S, Larsen R, Paulsen RR. Analysis of deformation of the human ear and canal caused by mandibular movement. In: Ayache N, Ourselin S, Maeder A, editors. Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer; 2007. p. 801–808.
   Google Scholar
• Bockstael A, Keppler H, Botteldooren D. Musician earplugs: appreciation and protection. Noise Health. 2015;17:198–208. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.160688
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjorn VS, Albery CB, McKinley RL. US Navy flight deck hearing protection use trends: survey results. Patuxent River (MD): Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division; 2006. (Report No. NAWCADPAX/TR-2006/73).
   Google Scholar
• Spomer J, Estrich CG, Halpin D, et al. Clinician perceptions of 4 hearing protection devices. JDR Clin Transl Res. 2017;2:363–369. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2380084417715599
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Davis RR, Murphy WJ, Byrne DC, et al. Acceptance of a semi-custom hearing protector by manufacturing workers. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2011;8:D125–D130. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2011.626262
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne DC, Davis RR, Shaw PB, et al. Relationship between comfort and attenuation measurements for two types of earplugs. Noise Health. 2011;13:86–92. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.77193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acton WI. Speech intelligibility in a background noise and noise-induced hearing loss. Ergonomics. 1970;13:546–554. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137008931173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Killion MC. Factors influencing use of hearing protection by trumpet players. Trends Amplif. 2012;16:173–178. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1084713812468514
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huttunen KH, Sivonen VP, Pöykkö VT. Symphony orchestra musicians’ use of hearing protection and attenuation of custom-made hearing protectors as measured with two different real-ear attenuation at threshold methods. Noise Health. 2011;13:176. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.77210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reber MB, Kompis M. Acclimatization in first-time hearing aid users using three different fitting protocols. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2005;32:345–351. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2005.05.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behar A, Segu R, Russo F. Comfort from hearing protectors. Can Acoust. 2014;42:64–65.
   Google Scholar
• Stork RL, Gasaway DC. Evaluation of V-51R and EAR™ earplugs for use in flight. Brooks Air Force Base (TX): USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Aerospace Medical Division; 1977. p. 10. (Report No. SAM-TR-77-1).
   Google Scholar
• Gasaway DC. Aeromedical review: personal ear protection (attenuation, effectiveness, and wearability of ear protection devices). Brooks Field (TX): School of Aerospace Medicine; 1971. (Report No. SAM-Review-2-71).
   Google Scholar
• Franks JR. Why choose custom-moulded over disposable earplugs? Ind Saf Hyg News. 2012 Aug;14:1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall L, Weathersby P, McCluskey J, et al. The introduction of custom earplugs aboard LCS-1. Groton (CT): Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory; 2016. (Report No. NSMRL/F1401/TM-2016-1315).
   Google Scholar
• Svensson EB, Morata TC, Nylén P, et al. Beliefs and attitudes among Swedish workers regarding the risk of hearing loss. Int J Audiol. 2004;43:585–593. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020400050075
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morata TC, Johnson A-C, Nylen P, et al. Audiometric findings in workers exposed to low levels of styrene and noise. J Occup Environ Med. 2002;44:806–814. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00043764-200209000-00002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bramhall N, Beach EF, Epp B, et al. The search for noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy in humans: mission impossible? Hear Res. 2019;377:88–103. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2019.02.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Prell CG. Effects of noise exposure on auditory brainstem response and speech-in-noise tasks: a review of the literature. Int J Audiol. 2019;58:S3–S32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2018.1534010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberman MC. Noise-induced and age-related hearing loss: new perspectives and potential therapies. F1000Research. 2017;6:927. doi: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11310.1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Neitzel R, Somers S, Seixas N. Variability of real-world hearing protector attenuation measurements. Ann Occup Hyg. 2006;50:679–691.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laitinen H, Poulsen T. Questionnaire investigation of musicians’ use of hearing protectors, self reported hearing disorders, and their experience of their working environment. Int J Audiol. 2008;47:160–168. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020801886770
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy WJ, Byrne DC, Themann CL. Hearing protector fit testing. Presented at NHCA Annual Conference; 2018 Feb 15–17; Orlando, FL; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Berger EH. ‘ Calibrating’ the insertion depth of roll-down foam earplugs . Proceedings of ICA 2013; 2013 Jun 2–7. Montreal, QC: Acoustical Society of America; 2013. p. 3235.
   Google Scholar
• American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Acoustical Society of America (ASA). Performance criteria for systems that estimate the attenuation of passive hearing protectors for individual users. New York (NY): American National Standards Institute; 2018. Standard No. ANSI/ASA S12.71.
   Google Scholar
• Martin L, Negrini A, Gaudreau MA, et al. Earplug personal attenuation rating (PAR) in noise-exposed workers: evolution over a five weeks follow-up. Proceedings of the 26th international congress on sound and vibration (ICSV26); 2019 Jul 7–11. Montreal: Canadian Acoustical Association; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Voix J, Smith P, Berger EH. Field fit-testing and attenuation-estimation procedures. In: Berger EH, Royster LH, Royster JD, Driscoll DP, Layne M, editors. The noise manual. 6th ed. Fairfax (VA): American Industrial Hygiene Association; 2020, Forthcoming.
   Google Scholar
• Casali JG. Comfort: the ‘other’ criterion for hearing protector design and selection. Proceedings of the Hearing conservation conference, Lexington, Kentucky, USA; 1992 Apr 1–4. Washington (DC): National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 1992. p. 47–53.
   Google Scholar
• Brueck L. Assessment of subjective and objective measurement systems of earplug attenuation on an individual. Buxton: Health and Safety Executive, Engineering and Personal Safety Unit; 2013. p. 37. (Report No. RR975).
   Google Scholar
• Murphy WJ, Byrne DC, Gauger D, et al. Results of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health–U.S. Environmental Protection Agency interlaboratory comparison of American National Standards Institute S12.6-1997 Methods A and B. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;125:3262. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3095803
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nélisse H, Le Cocq C, Boutin J, et al. Systematic evaluation of the relationship between physical and psychoacoustical measurements of hearing protectors’ attenuation. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2015;12:829–844. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2015.1053893
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viallet G, Sgard F, Laville F, et al. Investigation of the variability in earplugs sound attenuation measurements using a finite element model. Appl Acoust. 2015;89:333–344. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.10.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar