Guidelines and Standards for Wireless Technology for Individuals with Hearing Loss

During the time the European Economic Community (EC), through the Comite Europeen de Normalisation (CEN) was developing standards for Laser Processing Machines (by a mandate of the 89/392/EEC, “Machine Directive”), it became apparent to the Laser Products Group of the Association for Manufacturing Technology (AMT) that a similar standard would be useful for products made and used in the United States.AMT, among other activities, acts as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Secretariat for developing Machine Tool Standards, known as the ANSI B11 series. The B11.21 standard, like others in the B11 series, covers both manufacturers’ and users’ requirements for safety, as it spans the topics of Design, Construction, Care and Use. Since radiation and associated hazard information is covered primarily by existing laws and standards, such as 21 CFR and ANSI Z 136.1, the ANSI B11.21 acts as an information resource and as a comprehensive collection of these criteria.While it would be incorrect to term this standard a “spin-off” or copy of the EC efforts (e.g. ISO 11553 (EN 11553)), it has been an important element of B11.21’s creation that it contain recognition of the European work and harmonization with it. Two key elements of the standard make it especially useful for US manufacturers who wish to produce laser processing machines for both US delivery and the EC. The format of the B11.21, like other B11 standards contains a “normative” or requirement statement on the left side of each page, while the right hand column contains “informative” or explanatory information. In this standard, comparison to the EC requirements are listed to the right hand side for selected segments of the US standard. Additionally, throughout the B11.21 document, the concept of “Risk Assessment” and risk reduction, as a design element, is promoted, in accord with European standards which must comply with the Machine Directive.During the time the European Economic Community (EC), through the Comite Europeen de Normalisation (CEN) was developing standards for Laser Processing Machines (by a mandate of the 89/392/EEC, “Machine Directive”), it became apparent to the Laser Products Group of the Association for Manufacturing Technology (AMT) that a similar standard would be useful for products made and used in the United States.AMT, among other activities, acts as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Secretariat for developing Machine Tool Standards, known as the ANSI B11 series. The B11.21 standard, like others in the B11 series, covers both manufacturers’ and users’ requirements for safety, as it spans the topics of Design, Construction, Care and Use. Since radiation and associated hazard information is covered primarily by existing laws and standards, such as 21 CFR and ANSI Z 136.1, the ANSI B11.21 acts as an information resource and as a comprehensive collection of these criteria.While it would be incorrect to term ...

With the rapidly increasing number of electronic ballast manufacturers and ballast products entering the market recently, the compatibility of fluorescent lamps with electronic ballasts has become one of the major concerns among specifiers and users. In 1993, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) published ANSI C82.11-1993, which describes recommendations for high-frequency operation of fluorescent lamp ballasts. To address compatibility issues for lamp starting, ANSI C82.11 limits the average value of the RMS glow current to a maximum of 25 mA and lamp preheat time to a minimum of 500 ms. ANSI's definitions of glow current and preheat time are made on an ideal lamp starting curve. In reality, some electronic ballasts produce lamp starting curves very different from ANSI's definition, creating difficulties in practical measurements of glow current and preheat time. This research work tested lamp starting characteristics of 17 different electronic ballasts on 2-F40T12 lamps. The results showed that the starting performance of electronic ballasts varied; some met ANSI's requirements, but some did not. The results also showed that using electrode voltage can better define preheat time and glow current, which can better characterize the starting performance of electronic ballasts and ensure reliable testing procedures.

A multiphase study examining electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) between wireless digital telephones and hearing aids has been under way at the University of Oklahoma EMC Center since May 1995. In a phase 1 clinical study involving 68 hearing aid wearers, interference varied significantly by telephone technology, hearing aid type, and hearing loss characteristics. More than 80 percent of the tests resulted in either no interference or a detection threshold distance less than 1 meter. Metallic shielding of the units yielded positive results. Various elements of phase 2 involved instrument-based tests of hearing aid interference using telephones in a sound-isolation chamber and radio frequency signals in a waveguide, along with clinical studies of speech-to-interference ratios, all leading to the development of standards of measurement and performance criteria for telephone emissions and hearing aid immunity. Results to date confirm that bystander interference is of less concern than user interference, which is the focus of continuing research.

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for respiratory protection (ANSI Z88.2 1992) lists assigned protection factors (APFs) for various respirators. The committee that developed the APFs based its decisions on a review of available studies of respirator performance. If workplace studies were available, these formed the basis for the number assigned. If no such studies were available, then laboratory studies, design analogies, and other information were used to decide what value to assign. For half-mask air purifying respirators, four workplace protection factor studies were consulted to arrive at an APF. For loose-fitting facepiece powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs), five workplace studies and two laboratory studies were reviewed. For full-face air purifying, helmet/hooded PAPRs, and most supplied air respirators no workplace studies were available. The APF was based on laboratory studies or decided by analogy to other equipment. For the remaining respirators only single workplace protection factor studies were available, and these were used by the committee to assign an APF. The database available to the ANSI committee was limited. Most of the studies available for review were not published. The committee in a sense was required to perform peer review on the information to use the data. Studies completed after the ANSI committee finished its deliberations, when added to the data used, continue to support the APFs assigned by ANSI.

Audiometers—A Closer Look

Current standardized methods for the measurement of hearing‐aid performance (Specification of Hearing Aid Characteristics, S3.22‐1976, American National Standards Institute, New York) call for the measurement of two special characteristics of compression hearing aids, namely the dynamic and input‐output characteristics, at 2 kHz. A more thorough characterization of compression hearing aids requires measurements at more than one volume‐control setting to determine if the compression is controlled by the input or output signal. Also useful are random‐noise transfer functions and transmissibility measurements to determine the response to multifrequency signals, input‐output characteristics at several frequencies to determine the compression behavior in various frequency bands, and correlation coefficients to examine the influence of nonlinearities and internal noise in the hearing aid upon its performance. Measurements of these parameters are shown at two volume‐control settings for several commercially available hearing aids and their general applicability is discussed. [Work supported by the Veterans Administration.]

<div class="section abstract"> <div class="htmlview paragraph">This standard is to delineate the symbols used to identify controls, indicators, and tell-tales for automotive vehicles, trucks, off-the-road vehicles, construction equipment, industrial and recreational transportation and is for reference purposes only. The symbol application is to be found within the appropriate standards listed.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">Approved by AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE February 22, 1983</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">An American National Standard implies a consensus of those substantially concerned with its scope and provisions. An American National Standard is intended as a guide to aid the manufacturer, the consumer, and the general public. The existence of an American National Standard does not in any respect preclude anyone, whether he has approved the standard or not, from manufacturing, marketing, purchasing, or using products, processes, or procedures not conforming to the standard. American National Standards are subject to periodic review and users are cautioned to obtain the latest editions.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">The American National Standards Institute does not develop standards and will in no circumstances give an interpretation of any American National Standard. Moreover, no person shall have the right or authority to issue an interpretation of an American National Standard in the name of the American National Standards Institute.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">CAUTION NOTICE: This American National Standard may be revised or withdrawn at any time. The procedures of the American National Standards Institute require that action be taken to reaffirm, revise, or withdraw this standard no later than five years from the date of approval. Purchasers of American National Standards may receive current information on all standards by calling or writing the American National Standards Institute.</div></div>

Standardization of the virtual device metafile and the virtual device interface

Oxygen permeability (Dk) was determined for 37 available rigid contact lens materials in a masked fashion. The results were compared with those of an earlier study that included different lots of 14 test materials assessed in the current study. Six lenses of different thicknesses in each test and reference material were obtained. Test materials were arranged in sets of six to eight materials per set. Each set of materials, with inclusion of at least two reference materials for the purpose of simultaneous calibration, was measured to obtain preliminary amperages. Four preliminary measures were performed per thickness, resulting in 24 per material, in a schedule designed to spread the potential effects of machine drift and other factors. The mean preliminary amperages were used to derive corrected Dk values according to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z80.20-1998, and the values were linearly calibrated using the measured and established Dk values of the reference materials. The resistance (t/Dk) vs. thickness (t) plots for the 37 test and seven reference materials were approximated linearly. In 54 of 57 linear regressions, the coefficients of determination (R2) were >0.96, and in 48 instances were >0.98. Fourteen Dk values from the current study and an earlier study were linearly correlated (R2 = 0.9846), with a slope close to unity (+1.056) and intercept close to zero (-0.292). Ten of the current values fell within 10% of their corresponding earlier values. Only three current Dk values fell outside of the ANSI Z80.20-1998 tolerance for Dk (+/-20%). Two of these Dk values met the product tolerance when an obvious outlying point was graphically identified and omitted from the linear resistance (t/Dk) vs. thickness (t) regression. Omission of a single outlying point from a linear resistance vs. thickness regression can help provide a more valid Dk value. The ANSI Z80.20-1998 tolerance of +/-20% on Dk and the measurement reproducibility of +/-10% were achieved for the overwhelming majority of rigid contact lens materials up to at least 160 Dk units. The corrected, calibrated Dk values for the 37 test materials, in ANSI units, ranged from 13.8 to 175.1, having an overall mean of 43.2, median of 31.9, and standard error of 6.57 (N = 37).

Work-Relatedness.

American national standards for evaluations of educational programs have been developed by the joint committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. These standards have been approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). In the article, the standard-setting process developed by the joint committee and approved by ANSI is described. The process involves the following steps: (a) initiation of projects, (b) development of the first draft, (c) national and international reviews, (d) field tests, (e) national public hearings, (f) finalization of standards, (g) consideration of views and objections, (h) appeals, and (i) validation. The process is public, participatory, open, and consensual.

This institution provided a very general web-based medical laser safety training module as an alternative to custom live classroom sessions conducted upon request. However, an investigation revealed that the web-based course engendered more resentment than understanding among physicians, whose degree of specialization necessitates knowledge of only the specific hazards associated with their field. These doctors’ resulting aggravation undermined support for laser safety program efforts. This institution addressed these concerns by developing a series of application-specific training modules for posting on the institution’s web-based training site. Each module includes the core information specified in Appendix D of both the American National Standards Institute [ANSI] Z136.1-2000[1] and Z136.3-1996[2] Standards for Safe Use of Lasers. Application-specific information culled from recent relevant medical literature was added to create the specific modules. The appropriate Medical School faculty reviewed each module, and the reviewers’ comments were incorporated into the final version. As a result, medical laser users now have easy access to current applicable faculty-endorsed medical laser safety information. In addition, the demonstrated commitment to meeting the target audience needs has greatly improved support for the laser safety program at all levels. Finally, increased awareness and knowledge in the user community have enhanced the site’s laser safety program.

Level dependent hearing protectors, earplugs and earmuffs, have advanced in technology due to the needs of military personnel and others to reduce the risk of hearing damage from impulsive noise. These hearing protectors were developed to preserve ambient listening capabilities therefore improving situational awareness while reducing the risk of noise induced hearing loss by attenuating both continuous and impulsive noise. Four commercially available passive level dependent earplugs were assessed for both continuous noise attenuation and impulsive insertion loss performance. The continuous noise attenuation results were collected using American National Standard Institute (ANSI) S12.6-2008 Methods for Measuring the Real-Ear Attenuation of Hearing Protectors while the impulsive insertion loss results were collected using ANSI S12.42-2010 Methods for the Measurement of Insertion Loss of Hearing Protection Devices in Continuous or Impulsive Noise Using Microphone-in-Real-Ear (MIRE) or Acoustic Test Fixture Procedures. The presentation will include the passive noise attenuation performance of level dependent earplugs for both continuous and impulsive noise. The impulsive insertion loss results for these particular hearing protectors will be applied to impulsive noise damage risk criteria for an estimate of allowable impulsive noise exposure.

Incorporating a Client-Centered Approach to Audiologic Rehabilitation

To investigate music appreciation in hearing aid (HA) users with varying levels of hearing loss (HL). Cross-sectional, within-subjects design. Tertiary medical center, community. Adults (≥18 yr) bilateral HA users. HA usage. Outcome variables included self-reported music enjoyment measures (pleasantness, musicality, naturalness) with and without HAs assessed with visual analogue scales (10 indicates highest level of enjoyment, 0 the least). Exposure variables include HL (better ear pure-tone average) and speech discrimination (word recognition scores [WRS]). Demographic information was collected. One hundred nine bilateral HA users completed the study. Mean (standard deviation) age was 66.6 years (16.8 yr); 52.3% were female patients. Mean (standard deviation) better ear pure-tone average was 51.1 dB (16.3 dB) HL. Increased severity of HL and worse WRS were associated with decreased music enjoyment ( p < 0.05) across all measures without HAs, adjusting for sex, age, education, race, HA type, age of HL diagnosis, duration of HL, duration of HA use, musical preference, and musical experience. However, these associations were attenuated or no longer significant with HA usage. Moreover, among all subjects, HAs (vs. no HAs) provided increased music enjoyment in pleasantness (HA, 6.94, no HA, 5.74; p < 0.01), musicality (HA, 7.35; no HA, 6.13, p < 0.01), and naturalness (HA, 6.75; no HA, 6.02; p = 0.02). HA users report increased music enjoyment with HAs compared with without HAs. Increased severity of HL and worse WRS were independently associated with decreased unaided music enjoyment. HA usage seems to mitigate this effect, particularly for those with worse HL.