7/18/2019 Noise Exposure Estimates of Urban MP3 Player Users http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/noise-exposure-estimates-of-urban-mp3-player-users 1/30 Abstract (summary) TranslateAbstract To examine the sound level and duration of use of personal listening devices (PLDs) by 18 college students! ages 18"#$ years! as they entered a %e& 'or ity college campus! to determine &hether noise exposure from PLDs &as in excess of recommended exposure limits and &hat factors might influence exposure* +ree"field e,uivalent sound levels from PLD headphones &ere measured on a manne,uin &ith a calibrated soundlevel meter* Participants reported demographic information! &hether they had -ust come off the sub&ay! the type of PLD and earphones used! and duration per day and days per &ee they used their PLDs* .ased on measured free"field e,uivalent sound levels from PLD headphones and the reported PLD use! per day #8*/0 of participants exceeded 8# d. A"&eighted 8"hr e,uivalent sound levels (Lsub Ae,)! and per &ee #1*0 exceeded 8# d. A"&eighted 23"hr e,uivalent continuous sound levels (Lsub A&n)* The ma-ority of PLD users exceeded recommended sound exposure limits! suggesting that they &ere at increased ris for noise"induced hearing loss* Analyses of the demographics of these participants and mode of transportation to campus failed to indicate any particular gender differences in PLD use or in mode of transportation influencing sound exposure* Full Text • Translate+ull text • Turn on search term navigation Headnote Purpose4 To examine the sound level and duration of use of personal listening devices (PLDs) by 18 college students! ages 18"#$ years! as they entered a %e& 'or ity college campus! to determine &hether noise exposure from PLDs &as in excess of recommended exposure limits and &hat factors might influenceexposure* 5ethod4 +ree"field e,uivalent sound levels from PLD headphones &ere measured on a manne,uin &ith a calibrated sound level meter* Participants reported demographic information! &hether they had -ust come off the sub&ay! the type of PLD and earphones used! and duration per day and days per &ee they used their PLDs* 6esults4 .ased on measured free"field e,uivalent sound levels from PLD headphones and the reported PLDuse! per day #8*/0 of participants exceeded 8# d. A"&eighted 8"hr e,uivalent sound levels (Lsub Ae,)! and per &ee #1*0 exceeded 8# d. A"&eighted 23"hr e,uivalent continuous sound levels (Lsub A&n)*
30
Embed
Noise Exposure Estimates of Urban MP3 Player Users
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/18/2019 Noise Exposure Estimates of Urban MP3 Player Users
onclusions4 The ma-ority of PLD users exceeded recommended sound exposure limits!
suggesting that they &ere at increased ris for noise"induced hearing loss* Analyses of the
demographics of these participants and mode of transportation to campus failed to indicate
any particular gender differences in PLD use or in mode of transportation influencing
sound exposure*
7' 9:6D;4 noise"induced hearing loss! personal listening devices! portable music players!
minimal hearing impairment! social factors
(Pro<uest4 *** denotes formulae omitted*)
=n the present study! &e examined the sound levels of personal listening devices (PLDs>
e*g*! Ds! iPods! and 5P$ players)! also referred to as portable music players! used by
college students in %e& 'or ity* The goal &as to determine &hether the students?
estimated noise exposure from PLD use alone &as more or less than the
recommended exposure level for occupational noise (%ational =nstitute for :perational
;afety and @ealth %=:;@B! 18)* :ne potentially significant cause of noise"induced
hearing loss (%=@L) is attributed to recreational noise (Peng! Tao! C @uang! /33>9eichbold
C Eoro&a! /33)! such as the use of PLDs* PLD users may be at ris for %=@L if
they use these devices at high volumes for lengthy periods of time (+ligor! /33F)* 6esearch
sho&s that %=@L is the most common form of ac,uired hearing loss! secondary only to the
hearing loss related to age (6abino&itG! /333> 6oyster! 1F)*
%=@L results primarily from long"term exposure to sounds that are excessively high
(%ational =nstitute on Deafness and :ther ommunication Disorders! /33F)* The data sets
used to determine the degree of hearing loss caused by noise &ere collected in the late
1F3s and early 13s in predominantly 9hite! adult male populations that &ere exposed
to industrial noise (.aughn! 1$> .urns C 6obinson! 13> Lempert C @enderson! 1$>
Passchier"Hermeer! 1F8)* These data &ere instrumental in developing standards
(=nternational :rganisation for ;tandardisation! 13> American %ational ;tandards
=nstitute A%;=B! 1F) to describe the relationship bet&een noise exposure andnoiseinduced permanent threshold shift (%=PT;)! as &ell as I*;* federal regulations
(:ccupational ;afety and@ealth Administration :;@AB! 18$) and safety recommendations
(%=:;@! 18)*urrent understanding of these data is that a maximum exposure of 8# d.!
A"&eighted (d.A)! for an 8"hr daily exposure over a &oring lifetime of 23 years results in
roughly 80 of exposed persons having a hearinghandicap (Prince! ;tayner! ;mith!CJilbert!
7/18/2019 Noise Exposure Estimates of Urban MP3 Player Users
/33#)* That PLDs are capable of causing %=@L is not a matter of debate* 9hether PLDs are
used often enough! at high enough levels! to pose a ris to a large number of users"a ris
sufficient to &arrant the attention of the popular media"is a matter of debate (+ligor! /33)*
6esearchers have reported a&ide range of estimates for individuals at ris of
%=@L fromPLD use* 6ice! 6ossi! and :lina (18) estimated that only 1 in 1!#33 PLDusers is
at ris for a hearing disabilityfrom using PLDs* +elchlin et al* (18) reported that! of $#3
cassette tape player users! 130 exceeded an 8"hr time"&eighted average of 8# d.A*
Areasonable goal of hearing loss preventionists might be to identify subpopulations &ith
greater concentrations of individuals at ris because of factors that predispose them to
listen to music at louder levelsthan normal* +actors that are thought to contribute to chosen
(or KpreferredK) listening levels are the level of ambient noise in the listening environment
(Airo! Pearinen! C :linuora! 1F> +ligor C =ves! /33F> Portnuff! +ligor! C Arehart! /33>
9orthington et al*! /33) and earphone type (+ligor C =ves! /33F> @odgetts! 6ieger! C
;Garo! /33)* Age! gender! and other sociological and demographic characteristics may
also contribute to sound exposure from PLDs*
Teenagers fre,uently play their music at a higher intensity than do other PLD users &hile
not realiGing thelevel as potentially haGardous (Portnuff et al*! /33)* A survey
commissioned by the American ;peech"Language" @earing Association (Eogby! /33F)
examined the reported hearing difficulties of $31 high school students and 1!333 adults in
the Inited ;tates and found that teens &ere more liely than adults to report three of thefollo&ing symptoms of hearing loss4 (a) increasing the volume on their television or radio
(/80 of students vs* /F0 of adults)! (b) saying K9hatK or K@uhK during normal
conversation (/0of students vs* /10 of adults)! and (c) experiencing tinnitus or ringing in
the ears (10of students vs* 1/0 of adults)* Portnuff et al* (/33) also found that! on
average! teenage males 1$ to 1 years of age &ere choosing higher listeninglevels on PLDs
than &ere their female peers* ;uch gender differences have been observed in other studies
of PLD use (+ligor C =ves! /33F> Torre! /338> 9* 9illiams! /33#)! suggesting that gender
differences may exist*
Airo et al* (1F) reported that &hen ambient noise in the listening environment&as
increased to /d.A! the average chosen listening level of PLD users increased froman
average of Fd.Ain ,uiet to 8#d.A*9*9illiams (/33#) surveyed the listening levels of ##
adults on a noisy city street (&here ambient levels &ere $ d.A) and found that the average
addition! the compressed audio (e*g*! 5P$) file format allo&s music to move across space
&ithout being significantly degraded and to be reproduced &ithout overtly losing sound
,uality (.oradar! /33F)* The large number of songs and the compressed format mean that
music can be listened to for a greater duration of time than &ith previous storage media
(e*g*! Ds or cassette tapes)* These physical ,ualities create an opportunity for users to be
at greater ris for %=@L*
The ;ocial +actors Associated 9ith Personal Listening Devices
The social and cultural aspects of the iPod may play a greater role in the use of these
devices than the physical features described earlier* ultural theorists interpreted the first
self"contained PLD! a portable cassette tape player called the ;ony9alman! as a cultural
artifact embodying the values most associated &ith latemodern! postindustrial
societies4mobility! high technology! modernism! choice! youth! and entertainment (Du Jay!
@all! Oones! 5acay! C %egus! 1)* This idea of Kprivate listening in public placesK
represented a ne& and distinctive &ay of life4 The 9alman user becomes the solitary figure
in the cro&d! using music to screen out the boring and routine aspects of daily life* This
device allo&ed the user to become a Kself"sufficient individual &andering alone through the
city landscape!K an Kurban nomadK (Du Jay et al*! 1! p* 1F)* The Apple iPod extended
and perfected these themes* onsumers no& face an unprecedented level of choice and
personaliGation! &ith access to thousands of songs and individually customiGed playlists*
9ith the advent of compressed music files and audio file sharing and do&nloading! &hich&ere not available &ith the cassette tape or even theD!music is finally truly and infinitely
repeatable and reproducible*
PLDusers can escape fromthe uncontrollable sounds of the city! avoiding car alarms!
sub&ay noise! car horns! and being ased for money or directions* The PLD is particularly
appealing to people in modern affluent cultures! &here there is a high premium
on personal space! leading to a desire to &ithdra& and escape the streets (.auman! 1$>
&orout* They filter out the public soundscape and create their o&n controlled private
soundscape (;Geliga! /33)*
.lesser and ;alter (/338) argued that! in addition to the social need to control and
individualiGe personalspace! the iPod can lead to an altered state of consciousness* Although
the extant research is indirect! they suggested that music stimulates the brain and changes
the listener?s emotional state! causing relaxation or excitation (.lesser C ;alter! /338>
Levitin! /33F)* .y means of energetic masing! loud music maes the listener functionally
unable to hear anything but the music at hand! thus transporting that listener to another
aural space! from the immediate physical &orld to an imagined &orld of themusician
(.lesserC;alter! /338)*PLDusers report feeling calmer during their commute and
experiencing more pleasure during even mundane &or (.ull! /33> ;imun! /33)*
Dra&ing from the cultural theories of Adorno (11)! .en-amin (1$)! @eidegger (1F/)!
5arcuse (1F2)! and 5cLuhan (1F)! .ull (/33) argued that the privacy and
personaliGation of the iPod create a sense of &armth and connection in the distant and
exclusive spaces of modern urban culture* As a result! many users no& describe the iPod as
almost a necessity of life* =t has been called an Kurban ;herpaK or Kdigital ;herpa!K meaning
that people rely on their iPods to navigate today?s urban &orldmuch as mountain climbers in
the @imalayas rely on their guides (.ull! /33)*
5odern urban life can be particularly alienating for young people! &ho are struggling for
identity and individuality* 5usic has played a primary role in this search for meaning!identity! and leisure for young people (7otarba! 12)* The iPod?s slee and uni,ue design!
accompanied by its stylish mareting campaign! appeals to young people* The unmistaable
&hite headphones of the iPod signal the possession of a hip! stylish cultural product* The
iPod provides membership in a private club &hose membership is in the millions (Oones!
/33#)* According to the ;tudent 5onitor! a maret research group! college students rated
listening to their iPods as the coolest free time activity (Associated Press! /33F)* =t has been
called a KperfectK device and rans number one among today?s KcoolK items (Levy! /33F)*
The iPod has become a symbol of a generation and a marer of social status*
+urthermore! and potentially to their detriment! loud music is a favorite pastime of young
people* =t can be reasonably assumed that young people are attracted! more so than older
individuals are! to venues and activities that involve loud music! such as roc concerts!
clubs! and no& PLDs* ;ince the inception of roc ?n? roll (and perhaps before)! loud music
&as a sign of youth! rebellion! and individuality* =t figures into young people?s identities as
7/18/2019 Noise Exposure Estimates of Urban MP3 Player Users
a laboratory",uality measurement system (e*g*! a Type = sound level meter)! its
performance &as considered acceptable for the purpose of this study*
9e calibrated the manne,uin using the 5icrophone =n 6eal ar techni,ue (=nternational
:rganisation for ;tandardisation! /33/) to determine a coupler to freefield correction factor
to report free"field e,uivalent levels(transfer function of the outer ear T+:B of the
manne,uin)* A hole &as pierced &ith a needle in the side of the canal of the silicon ear! and
a metal grommet &ith an inner diameter of 1*#mm&as inserted into this piercing* A probe
tube (outer diameter4 1*# mm) &as positioned /mmin front of the microphone that &as
seated in the silicone model ear and connected to the sound level meter* This probe tube
&as connected to an 6"c Probe 5icrophone ;ystem (tymotic 6esearch! =nc*) and routed
to a personal computer running data ac,uisition soft&are (Adobe Audition! version 1*#)*
Pin noise generated in Adobe Audition &as presented via loudspeaer at 3 d.A (verified
via a separate 6adio ;hac sound level meter held by the manne,uin?s ear) and measured
via 6"c in the free field and again via the probe microphone in the ear canal of the
manne,uin* The difference in fre,uency response bet&een the free field and the ear canal
probe microphone measures &as considered the T+: for this manne,uin* This T+:
correction &as saved as a filter in the Audition soft&are* This T+: filter &as applied to
recorded sound files of music that &ere presented via t&o different earphones placed on the
model ear*
The t&o earphones used for calibration &ere the Apple iPod earbud earphone included &iththe purchase of an iPod and the 7oss 7;11 over"the"ear headphone (7oss orporation)*
=n"the"canal earphones (earphones that are seated deeply in the ear canal) did not fit the
manne,uin?s silicone ear because the length of the silicone ear?s canal &as too shallo& to
accommodate their full insertion* Thus! determining a free"field e,uivalent correction factor
for in"the"canal earphones for this manne,uin &as not possible*9e used five songs as the
stimuli for comparing T+:"corrected levels recorded via the 6"c probe microphone &ith
those levelsmeasured by the manne,uin"modified sound level meter* These songs &ere the
%o* 1 do&nloaded songs on iTunes*com on December $3! /338! in the genres of
Kalternative!K Kpop!K Kcountry!K Khip"hopNrap!K and Kroc*K A single number considered the
typical level of the chorus of the song observed on the sound level meter (set to Kslo&K
integration and A"&eighting) &as reported! rounded to the nearest decibel* Ising the
earbud earphone! the difference bet&een the overall A"&eighted levels measured by the
manne,uin?s sound levelmeter and the overallA"&eighted T+:"corrected 6"c probe
microphone measured levels &as 2*2 to F*3 d. (5 M #*3 d.! ;D M 3*#)* Ising the over"the"
7/18/2019 Noise Exposure Estimates of Urban MP3 Player Users
The levels measured from participants? earphones &ere assumed to be representative of
their typical listeninglevels* onse,uently! &e estimated noise exposure by day and by &ee
on the basis of the PLD user?s reported duration of use per day and days per &ee of use*
After the PLD level measurements &ere taen! participants &ere counseled regarding their
relative ris for %=@L and ho& they could tae steps to mitigate ris if necessary*
Data 5easures
Ambient noise in the vicinity of testing* The location &here data &ere collected &as on a
side&al -ust inside the entrance to the campus! ad-acent to the entrance of a sub&ay
station* ;ound levels in the testing locale &ere assessed using a ;oundPro ;P ;"/"1N$ Type
/ sound level meter (<uest Technologies)* Ambient streetnoise ranged from#F*3 to F8*1
d.A (5M F3*F d.A! ;DM $*1 d.! 5dn M F3*3 d.A)* The ambient street noise level&as never
e,ual to or above the level measured from the earphones of a participant* A re,uest &as
made of the %e& 'or ity Transit Authority to conduct this study inside the sub&ay station!
but this re,uest &as denied*
stimations of sound exposure* :f the /3/ participants&ho gave informed consent!
sevenmale participants and six female participants used in"the"canal earphones! the output
of &hich could not be accurately measured &ith our manne,uin* 9e thus excluded thesound level measures of these 1$ participants from the estimations of sound exposure*
arbuds&ere used by 18$ participants! and over"the"ear headphones &ere used by six
participants* %o participant?s free"field corrected earphone output &as less than the 2# d.A
measurement floor of our manne,uin* :ne male participant and one female participant had
free"field corrected earphone output of 1/1 d.A (the measurement ceiling of our
7/18/2019 Noise Exposure Estimates of Urban MP3 Player Users
earbud users and only six over"the"ear headphone users! &e &ere not able to conduct
statistical analyses to compare means*
@ypothesis /4 PLD Isers 9ho Travel Hia the ;ub&ay 9ill Listen at @igher Levels Than 9ill
Those 9ho Do %ot Travel Hia the ;ub&ay
As summariGed in Table /! a t&o"&ay independentsamples t test indicated there &as nosignificant difference at a Q *3# bet&een measured earphone output for the PLD users &ho
traveled by sub&ay ($*1 d.A! ;D M 13*1) versus those &ho did not travel by sub&ay
(i*e*! traveled by foot! bus! or car> /*$ d.A! ;D M 13*F8)* Although at least /3 out of the
2 sub&ay rider PLD users (210) had ad-usted the level of their devices after leaving the
sub&ay! according to a t&o"&ay independentsamples t test (p M *1#)! there &as no
significant difference bet&een the earphone output of those &ho did ad-ust the volume
7/18/2019 Noise Exposure Estimates of Urban MP3 Player Users
The average free"field corrected earphone output &as /* d.A (;D M 13*$ d.) for males
and /*$ d.A (;D M 11*1 d.) for females! &ith no significant difference bet&een these
means (see Table $)* The LA8hn and Lsub A&n of male and female participants are
reported in +igures 2 and #! respectively* The average LA8hn of female participants &as
8F*8 d.A! and the average male LA8hn &as 8*F d.A* The average Lsub A&n of female
participants &as 8F*8 d.A! and the average male Lsub A&n &as 88*3 d.A* A t&o"&ay
independent"samples t test failed to sho& a difference bet&eenmale and femaleLA8hn (p
M *F/) andmale and female Lsub A&n (p M *28)*
Discussion
These data indicate that the average free"field corrected PLD user?s chosen
listening level &as in excess of the generally considered rule of thumb of not exceeding 8#
d.A* 6is for %=@L is not as simple as chosen listeninglevel! ho&ever! because it is the
normaliGed e,uivalent continuous sound level (i*e*! the level integrated over time)! based on
time"intensity trading ratios! that e,uates%=@L ris* =t has been previous reported (+elchlin
et al*! 18) that chosen listening level and duration of use are not associated> the
data from our study are consistent &ith this previous report* Therefore! it is only those PLD
users &ho choose levels in excess of a safe listening level and use PLDs longer than is safe
for their chosen listening level &ho are at ris for %=@L* The population that falls into this
category represents the demographic group at ris for %=@L and commands the relative
attention given by public health advocates* The siGe of this at"ris population has been a
topic of debate (+ligor! /33)* 5ore than half the participants in the present study &ere at
ris for %=@L*9e chose this study population because they are college students &ho have
been previously reported to be common users of PLDs (Danhauer et al*! /33> Torre! /338)!because the ambient noise in the listeners? environment is high in %e& 'or ity (Jershon
et al*! /33F)! and because bacground noise has been sho&n to increase PLD chosen
listening level (Airo et al*! 1F> +ligor C =ves! /33F)*
The average e,uivalent continuous level of participants in this study in a given day &as 8*/
d.A and in a given &ee &as 8*2 d.A* T&enty"five percent of participants had Lsub
7/18/2019 Noise Exposure Estimates of Urban MP3 Player Users
A&n greater than # d.A! 130of participants had Lsub A&n greater than 13/ d.A!
and #0 of participants had Lsub A&n greater than 13 d.A* According to A%;= ;$*22"
1F! for a 13"year exposure to Lsub A&n of # d.A! the %=PT; for the person of
average %=@L susceptibility is /3 d. @L! the %=PT; for Lsub A&n of 13/ d.A is $F d.
@L! and the %=PT; for Lsub A&n of 13 d.A is #1 d. @L* ompared &ith the age"
e,uivalent hearing thresholds at 2333 @G reported in Annex . of A%;= ;$*22"1F! these
13"year %=PT; estimates reflect shifts in hearing thresholds that are on par &ith the hearing
of a 23"year"old man (for persons exposed to Lsub A&n M # d.A for 13 years)! a #3"
year"old man (for persons exposed to Lsub A&n M 13/ d.A for 13 years)! and a F3"
year"old man (for persons exposed to Lsub A&n M 13 d.A for 13 years)* The average
age of participants in this study &as //*/ years> it is conceivable that in 13 years! some of
these participants &ill be $/ years old and &ill have hearing that is on par &ith men &ho are
decades older*
=n contrast to @ypothesis /! participants &ho commuted using the sub&ay ($*$ d.A) did
not have significantly higher PLD sound exposure than nonsub&ay commuters (/*$ d.A)!
even after &e accounted for those &ho reported ad-usting the volume control on their PLDs*
=t is possible that many more sub&ay riders did reduce the volume control on their device
and failed to disclose that they had done so &hen ased! or that nonsub&ay riders
choose levels on par &ith sub&ay riders*
=n contrast to @ypothesis $! there &as no significant difference bet&een PLDsound exposure for males and females in this study* Previous research has reported that
males choose listening levels that are higher than those chosen by females (e*g*! Torre!
/338)> ho&ever! methods of measurement differ across investigations! &ith some studies
asing participants to ad-ust their listening in a laboratory setting (@odgetts et al* /33>
Torre! /338)! sometimes in response to different levels of ambient sound (+ligorC=ves!
/33F> Portnuff et al*! /33)* =n addition! this study has a larger sample than previous
studies that have found gender differences (+ligorC=ves! /33F> Portnuff et al*! /33> Torre!
/338> 9* 9illiams! /33#)* =n the current study! &e obtained listening levels as participants
entered the campus &ithout prompting or instruction from investigators* =n this &ay! a
measurement &as obtained that &as unbiased by the potentially strange listening
environment of a laboratory or a presupposition on the part of the participants to anticipate
a desired outcome by the investigators* =n addition! all participants! regardless of gender!
may have ad-usted their listening levelbecause of the ambient street noise* Thus! &ith
participants &ho &ere in essence blinded to the fact that their listening level &ould be
7/18/2019 Noise Exposure Estimates of Urban MP3 Player Users
audited by researchers! and given the relatively high level of ambient noise in the listening
environment! theremay not be a difference in chosen listening level bet&een genders* This
may mean that participants &ere less susceptible to pressure to conform to cultural norms
concerning risy or &ild behavior (.ooth C %olen /33a! /33b> Lorber! 12)* Hictorian
gender norms! &hich still seem to influence modern"day attitudes! dictate that girls exhibit
lo&er levels of ris"taing behaviors than boys> they are Ksugar and spice!K &hereas boys
are Krough and tumble*K +urthermore! one should expect even fe&er gender differences
&hen looing at private activities such as listening to music &ith headphones! for &hich
there is even less external pressure to conform to gender norms* =t is possible that our
study population is less susceptible to stereotypical gender norms* =t also is possible that
bacground noise in the listening environment overcame gender differences that have been
reported to exist &hen people listen in ,uiet environments (+ligor C =ves! /33F)* :ur
findings are in contrast &ith those of 9* 9illiams (/33#)! &ho also measured chosenlistening levels! this time on a city street in Australia* @e found that men had
soundexposures! on average! that &ere at higher levels than &omen?s (LA8hn M 83*F and
#*$ d.A! respectively)* The overall sound exposure from PLDs in his study of ## individuals
&as lo&er (LA8hn M *8 d.A) than in the present study* Perhaps there are societal
differences bet&een Australia and the Inited ;tates that influenced the outcome for gender*
Limitations of the current study include the fact that much of the estimates relied on the
study participants? accurate report of their duration of PLD use* Ising a single observed
sound level measured on the manne,uin (&hich has an accuracy of / d.) to be
representative of listening level during all listening is tenuous> ho&ever! past studies have
relied on participant self"report (e*g*! +elchlin et al*! 18>9*9illiams! /33#) and! in the
absence of technical solutions to monitor participants? durations of use! self"report is the
most effective measure for surveying use in a large number of participants (Jriffin et al*!
/33)* Additional limitations include the fact that our method allo&ed us to mae
sound exposure estimates only from earbud and over"the"ear headphones! rather than
including in"the"canal earphones* =t has been previously reported that in"the"canal
earphones can produce higher output levels than other earphones (7eith et al*! /338>
Portnuff C +ligor! /33F)! but these earphones provide sound
isolation from ambient noise and so are used at lo&er levels than non"sound isolating
earphones in higher levels of ambient noise (+ligor C =ves! /33F)*
onclusions
7/18/2019 Noise Exposure Estimates of Urban MP3 Player Users
stimates of noise exposure based on measured listening levels and reported listening
duration suggest that the average PLD user in this study &as at ris for %=@L*
The exposure estimates indicate that a similar percentage of both sexes are at ris for %=@L!
and the PLD listening environment during participants? commute did not yield obvious
factors influencing PLD sound exposure* Although there is a need for further research to
assess the accuracy of these estimates! these findings &arrant efforts to provide targeted
education for college"age people using PLDs in urban environments*
Although no&ledge of the effect of loud noises on hearing loss has been present in the
literature for the last 133 years (Lonsbury"5artin C 5artin! /33)! the effect of noise on
hearing abilities seems to have not consistently filtered do&n to PLD users in this study! or
perhaps the information is available but has failed to elicit changes in behavior to reduce
ris for %=@L* The social factors described earlier may lead to a reluctance among young
people to protect their hearing* PLD use! particularly at high levels! allo&s young people to
retreat from the noises of noisy and cro&ded public areas and to add a personal soundtrac
to other&ise mundane activities*
Danhauer et al* (/33) reported that the vast ma-ority of college"age students (8F*F0) in
their nation&ide survey believed that using an iPod at Kloud listening levelsK may damage
hearing* +urthermore! responses to Danhauer et al*?s ,uestionnaire suggested that college
students &ish to exercise personal responsibility regarding their hearing health and that
educational outreach campaigns that sensationaliGe hearing loss ris may not be effective*onsidering these previous reports! educational institutions may establish a preventative
program to target the inappropriate use of PLDs (as &ell as other sources of noise)* =n
addition! early identification of students &ith mild hearing loss is essential to provide them
&ith the necessary supports for academic sills and to prevent greater loss of hearing
abilities* To prevent %=@L! it is essential that speech"language pathologists and audiologists
collaborate (5oore! /33> ;miley C Threats! /33F)! given that both professions are a&are
of the negative effects of hearing loss and are committed to the prevention of health
disabilities! specifically those affecting communication*
.roader education on the appropriate use of PLDs and the effect of noise on hearing is
essential (;erra et al*! /33> 9eichbold C Eoro&a! /33)! especially &ith a &orld&ide sale
of /#*F million portable music players in /33# (KPortable 5usic Player 5aret!K /33#)* This
&as an increase of 230 from the previous year (American ;peech"Language"@earing
Association! /33#)* Danhauer et al* (/33) advocated that members of at"ris groups
7/18/2019 Noise Exposure Estimates of Urban MP3 Player Users
.lesser! .*! C ;alter! L* (/338)* The unexamined re&ards for excessive loudness*ommunications4 th =nternational ongress on %oise as a Public @ealth Problem*
5cLuhan! 5* (1F)* The medium is the message4 An inventory of effects* %e& 'or! %'4
.antam*
5elni! 9* (11)* @uman temporary threshold shift (TT;) and damage ris* The Oournal of
the Acoustical ;ociety of America! 3! 12"1#2*
5oore! 5* (/33! Oanuary /3)* /33 A;@A President ;ue T* @alle4 A clinician! a teacher! and
a leader* The A;@A Leader! 12(1)! /3"/$*
%ational =nstitute for :ccupational ;afety and @ealth* (18)* riteria for a recommendedstandard4 :ccupational noise exposure! revised criteria* 6etrieved from http4NN&&&*
nonoise*orgNhearingNcriteriaNcriteria*htm*
%ational =nstitute on Deafness and :ther ommunication Disorders* (/33)* %oise"induced
hearing loss* 6etrieved from http4NN&&&*nidcd*nih*govNhealthNhearingN noise*asp*
Torre! P* (/338)* 'oung adults? use and output level settings of personal music systems* ar
and @earing! /! 1"*
9eichbold! H*! C Eoro&a! P* (/33)* an a hearing education campaign for adolescentschange their music listening behavior =nternational Oournal of Audiology! 2F! 1/8"1$$*
9illiams! 6* (18$)* To&ards /333* London! I74 hatto C 9indus*
9illiams! 9* (/33#)* %oise exposure levels from personal stereo use* =nternational Oournal