↓ Skip to main content

Impact of hearing protection devices on sound localization performance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of hearing protection devices on sound localization performance
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00135
Pubmed ID
Authors

Véronique Zimpfer, David Sarafian

Abstract

Hearing Protection Devices (HPDs) can protect the ear against loud potentially damaging sounds while allowing lower-level sounds such as speech to be perceived. However, the impact of these devices on the ability to localize sound sources is not well known. To address this question, we propose two different methods: one behavioral and one dealing with acoustical measurements. For the behavioral method, sound localization performance was measured with, and without, HPDs on 20 listeners. Five HPDs, including both passive (non-linear attenuation) and three active (talk-through) systems were evaluated. The results showed a significant increase in localization errors, especially front-back and up-down confusions relative to the "naked ear" test condition for all of the systems tested, especially for the talk-through headphone system. For the acoustic measurement method, Head-Related Transfer Functions (HRTFs) were measured on an artificial head both without, and with the HPDs in place. The effects of the HPDs on the spectral cues for the localization of different sound sources in the horizontal plane were analyzed. Alterations of the Interaural Spectral Difference (ISD) cues were identified, which could explain the observed increase in front-back confusions caused by the talk-through headphone protectors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 22%
Researcher 6 22%
Student > Master 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 8 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 15%
Psychology 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2014.
All research outputs
#18,171,423
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#7,902
of 10,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,561
of 230,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#76
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 230,096 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.