Field assessment of acute auditory responses to environmental exposures in close quarters tactics training

Acute Hearing Deficits associated with Weapons Exposure in Section 734 Blast Overpressure Study (BOS)

INTRODUCTION

This prospective, multi-site, observational study describes ongoing efforts in support of the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Section 734 Blast Overpressure Study (BOS) to identify the acute effects impulse and blast exposure have on hearing abilities of the Warfighter in various military training environments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Hearing thresholds, a binaural tone detection task, and auditory symptoms were collected before and immediately following weapons exposure across nine military training environments from January 2020 to October 2022. An additional 25 non-exposed control participants also completed the behavioral test battery. A boothless audiometer was used to measure hearing ability in the field. Sound level meters were attached on-body to record the exposure environment throughout training.

RESULTS

Mean threshold change for the blast-exposed group was worse than the control group. Of the 188 blast-exposed participants, 23 experienced a temporary threshold shift (TTS) acutely after exposure. A decrease in binaural tone detection performance and increased symptom severity was found when comparing blast-exposed participants with a TTS versus those without a significant change in hearing. A complex but consistent relationship between measured exposure level (LAeq8hr) and the magnitude of the resulting TTS is suggested in the available data.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent discussions on Section 734 studies examining the effects of repetitive blast exposure have indicated that hearing-related issues were a critical problem that needed additional research. Study outcomes provide highly repeatable results across various weapons systems with hazardous blast exposure. This standardized set of hearing assessment tools for evaluating acute effects of noise under field conditions has been critically important in improving our understanding of TTS in prospective human subject research.

Efficient Estimation of the Binaural Masking Level Difference Using a Technique Based on Manual Audiometry

PURPOSE

The Masking Level Difference (MLD) has been used for decades to evaluate the binaural listening advantage. Although originally measured using Bekesy audiometry, the most common clinical use of the MLD is the CD-based Wilson 500-Hz technique with interleaved N0S0 and N0Sπ components. Here, we propose an alternative technique based on manual audiometry as a faster way of measuring the MLD. The article describes the advantages to this administration technique and evaluates if it is a viable alternative for the Wilson technique.

METHOD

Data were retrospectively analyzed on 264 service members (SMs). All SMs completed both the Wilson and Manual MLDs. Descriptive and correlational statistics were applied to evaluate the comparisons between the two techniques and highlight the differences. Equivalence measures were also completed to compare the tests using a standardized cutoff score. Analyses were also made to compare both techniques to subjective and objective measures of hearing performance.

RESULTS

Moderate to high positive correlations were determined between Wilson and Manual measures of each threshold (N0Sπ and N0S0). Although the Manual and Wilson MLD techniques produced significantly different thresholds, simple linear transformations can be used to obtain approximately equivalent scores on the two tests, and agreement was high for using these transformed scores to identify individuals with substantial MLD deficits. Both techniques had moderate test-retest reliability. The Manual MLD and components had stronger correlations to the subjective and objective hearing measures than the Wilson.

CONCLUSIONS

The Manual technique is a faster method for obtaining MLD scores that is just as reliable as the CD-based Wilson test. With the significant reduction in assessment time and comparable results, the Manual MLD is a viable alternative for direct use in the clinic.

Noise-induced hearing disorders: Clinical and investigational tools

A series of articles discussing advanced diagnostics that can be used to assess noise injury and associated noise-induced hearing disorders (NIHD) was developed under the umbrella of the United States Department of Defense Hearing Center of Excellence Pharmaceutical Interventions for Hearing Loss working group. The overarching goals of the current series were to provide insight into (1) well-established and more recently developed metrics that are sensitive for detection of cochlear pathology or diagnosis of NIHD, and (2) the tools that are available for characterizing individual noise hazard as personal exposure will vary based on distance to the sound source and placement of hearing protection devices. In addition to discussing the utility of advanced diagnostics in patient care settings, the current articles discuss the selection of outcomes and end points that can be considered for use in clinical trials investigating hearing loss prevention and hearing rehabilitation.

Prospective measurements of hearing threshold during military rifle training with in-ear, protected, noise exposure monitoring

Although a causal relationship exists between military occupational noise exposure and hearing loss, researchers have struggled to identify and/or characterize specific operational noise exposures that produce measurable changes in hearing function shortly following an exposure. Growing evidence suggests that current standards for noise-exposure limits are not good predictors of true hearing damage. In this study, the aim was to capture the dose-response relationship during military rifle training exercises for noise exposure and hearing threshold. To capture exposure, a wearable system capable of measuring impulse noise simultaneously on-body and in-ear, behind hearing protection was used. To characterize hearing threshold changes, portable audiometry was employed within 2 h before and after exposure. The median 8-h time-weighted, protected, free-field equivalent in-ear exposure was 87.5 dBA at one site and 80.7 dBA at a second site. A significant dose-response correlation between in-ear noise exposure and postexposure hearing threshold changes across our population ( R = 0.40 , p = 0.0281) was observed. The results demonstrate an approach for establishing damage risk criteria (DRC) for in-ear, protected measurements based on hearing threshold changes. While an in-ear DRC does not currently exist, it may be critical for predicting the risk of injury for noise environments where protection is mandatory and fit status can vary.