Content deleted Content added
→Controversy: Updated the controversy that the previous editor removed with the wholesale rewrite of the page. These papers are significant to the assumptions inherent to the AHAAH model. |
|||
Line 23:
== Controversy ==
The AHAAH was the subject of controversy in regards to its use as the universal metric for acoustic hazards.<ref name=":8" /> In 2003, a [[NATO]] research study on impulse noise found that the AHAAH produced unsatisfactory results for several exposure conditions, and the concluding report contained conflicting opinions from several experts.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=|first=|date=April 2003|title=Reconsideration of the Effects of Impulse Noise|url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.214.6990&rep=rep1&type=pdf|format=PDF|journal=NATO|volume=|pages=|isbn=92-837-1105-X|id=TR-017|via=}}</ref> A 2010 review by the [[American Institute of Biological Sciences|American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS)]] also concluded that while the AHAAH model was a step in the right direction in terms of incorporating factors such as the middle ear muscle contractions in its analysis, it was not yet fully developed and validated. According to the AIBS, there were concerns as to whether the AHAAH model was capable of modeling the acoustic hazard of a complex military environment with continuous noise from various different machinery and weapons being produced simultaneously.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=American Institute of Biological Sciences|first=|date=November 9, 2010|title=Peer Review of Injury Prevention and Reduction Research Task Area Injury Models|url=https://arlinside.arl.army.mil/www/pages/343/AHAAH_AIBS_revew_Public_Release_11Aug14.pdf|journal=Army Research Laboratory|volume=|pages=|via=}}</ref> In 2012, a review by the [[National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health|National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)]] argued that the MEM contractions that were used by the AHAAH to justify increasing the recommended maximum noise levels were not present in enough people to be applied as a valid form of analysis. The report also noted that the AHAAH did not adequately take into account the effects of secondary exposure, such as adjacent shooters and range safety personnel.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Murphy|first=William|last2=Khan|first2=Amir|last3=Shaw|first3=Peter|date=December 3, 2009|title=An Analysis of the Blast Overpressure Study Data Comparing Three Exposure Criteria|url=https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/surveyreports/pdfs/309-05h.pdf|format=PDF|journal=U.S. Department of Health and Human Services|volume=|pages=|id=EPHB 209-05h|via=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Murphy|first=William|last2=Kardous|first2=Chucri|date=January 10, 2012|title=A Case for Using A-Weighted Equivalent Energy as a Damage Risk Criterion|url=https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/surveyreports/pdfs/350-11a.pdf|journal=CDC Workplace Safety and Health|volume=|pages=|via=}}</ref> As of 2015, the AHAAH model has not been adopted by the NATO community.<ref name=":3" />
Both NIOSH and the US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratories funded research to investigate the classical conditioning that has been integral to the warned AHAAH model. In the warned mode, the middle ear muscles are assumed to be already contracted. In the unwarned mode, the middle ear muscles are contracted after a loud sound exceeds a threshold of about 134 dB peak SPL. Several studies conducted between 2014 and 2020 have examined the prevalence and reliability of the MEMC. According to a nationally representative survey of more than 15,000 persons, the prevalence of the acoustic reflex measured in persons aged 18 to 30 was less than 90%.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Flamme |first1=Gregory A. |last2=Deiters |first2=Kristy K. |last3=Tasko |first3=Stephen M. |last4=Ahroon |first4=William A. |title=Acoustic reflexes are common but not pervasive: evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2012 |journal=International Journal of Audiology |date=21 November 2016 |volume=56 |issue=sup1 |pages=52–62 |doi=10.1080/14992027.2016.1257164}}</ref> A follow-on study that carefully assessed 285 persons with normal hearing concluded that "acoustic reflexes are not pervasive and should not be included in damage risk criteria and health assessments for impulsive noise."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McGregor |first1=Kara D. |last2=Flamme |first2=Gregory A. |last3=Tasko |first3=Stephen M. |last4=Deiters |first4=Kristy K. |last5=Ahroon |first5=William A. |last6=Themann |first6=Christa L. |last7=Murphy |first7=William J. |title=Acoustic reflexes are common but not pervasive: evidence using a diagnostic middle ear analyser |journal=International Journal of Audiology |date=19 December 2017 |volume=57 |issue=sup1 |pages=S42–S50 |doi=10.1080/14992027.2017.1416189}}</ref> The anticipatory contraction integral to the warned response is not reliable in persons with normal hearing.<ref name=Deiters>{{cite journal |last1=Deiters |first1=Kristy K. |last2=Flamme |first2=Gregory A. |last3=Tasko |first3=Stephen M. |last4=Murphy |first4=William J. |last5=Greene |first5=Nathaniel T. |last6=Jones |first6=Heath G. |last7=Ahroon |first7=William A. |title=Generalizability of clinically measured acoustic reflexes to brief sounds |journal=The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America |date=November 2019 |volume=146 |issue=5 |pages=3993–4006 |doi=10.1121/1.5132705}}</ref><ref name=Jones>{{cite journal |last1=Jones |first1=Heath G. |last2=Greene |first2=Nathaniel T. |last3=Ahroon |first3=William A. |title=Human middle-ear muscles rarely contract in anticipation of acoustic impulses: Implications for hearing risk assessments |journal=Hearing Research |date=July 2019 |volume=378 |pages=53–62 |doi=10.1016/j.heares.2018.11.006}}</ref>
== References ==
| |||