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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2734-2735
Number of pages2
JournalJournal of the Acoustical Society of America
Volume103
Issue number5 PART I
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1998

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Acoustics and Ultrasonics

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