Comments on "A re-examination of risk estimates from the NIOSH occupational noise and hearing survey" [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 950-963 (1997)]

Robert A. Dobie

doi:10.1121/1.422794

Comments on "A re-examination of risk estimates from the NIOSH occupational noise and hearing survey" [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 950-963 (1997)]

Robert A. Dobie

Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

The recent paper by Prince et al. [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 950-963 (1997)] uses as a primary outcome measure an estimate of hearing handicap based on a weighted average of pure tone thresholds at 1,2, 3, and 4 kHz. This choice is unusual and inadequately justified. If four equally weighted frequencies are to be chosen, the ANSI standard referenced by Prince et al. would suggest 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. If 1, 2, 3, and 4 kHz are chosen, the weights from ANSI 3.5, 1969 would be very different from those used by Prince et al.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	2734-2735
Number of pages	2
Journal	Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Volume	103
Issue number	5 PART I
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1121/1.422794
State	Published - Jan 1 1998

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
Acoustics and Ultrasonics

Access to Document

10.1121/1.422794

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comments on "A re-examination of risk estimates from the NIOSH occupational noise and hearing survey" [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 950-963 (1997)]'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

@article{4fd983cf1d1446d7806c20a4e1918667,

title = "Comments on {"}A re-examination of risk estimates from the NIOSH occupational noise and hearing survey{"} [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 950-963 (1997)]",

abstract = "The recent paper by Prince et al. [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 950-963 (1997)] uses as a primary outcome measure an estimate of hearing handicap based on a weighted average of pure tone thresholds at 1,2, 3, and 4 kHz. This choice is unusual and inadequately justified. If four equally weighted frequencies are to be chosen, the ANSI standard referenced by Prince et al. would suggest 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. If 1, 2, 3, and 4 kHz are chosen, the weights from ANSI 3.5, 1969 would be very different from those used by Prince et al.",

author = "Dobie, {Robert A.}",

year = "1998",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1121/1.422794",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "103",

pages = "2734--2735",

journal = "Journal of the Acoustical Society of America",

issn = "0001-4966",

publisher = "Acoustical Society of America",

number = "5 PART I",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comments on "A re-examination of risk estimates from the NIOSH occupational noise and hearing survey" [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 950-963 (1997)]

AU - Dobie, Robert A.

PY - 1998/1/1

Y1 - 1998/1/1

N2 - The recent paper by Prince et al. [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 950-963 (1997)] uses as a primary outcome measure an estimate of hearing handicap based on a weighted average of pure tone thresholds at 1,2, 3, and 4 kHz. This choice is unusual and inadequately justified. If four equally weighted frequencies are to be chosen, the ANSI standard referenced by Prince et al. would suggest 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. If 1, 2, 3, and 4 kHz are chosen, the weights from ANSI 3.5, 1969 would be very different from those used by Prince et al.

AB - The recent paper by Prince et al. [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 950-963 (1997)] uses as a primary outcome measure an estimate of hearing handicap based on a weighted average of pure tone thresholds at 1,2, 3, and 4 kHz. This choice is unusual and inadequately justified. If four equally weighted frequencies are to be chosen, the ANSI standard referenced by Prince et al. would suggest 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. If 1, 2, 3, and 4 kHz are chosen, the weights from ANSI 3.5, 1969 would be very different from those used by Prince et al.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031813362&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031813362&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1121/1.422794

DO - 10.1121/1.422794

M3 - Article

C2 - 9604364

AN - SCOPUS:0031813362

VL - 103

SP - 2734

EP - 2735

JO - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

JF - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

SN - 0001-4966

IS - 5 PART I

ER -