{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/33419"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/33419","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Determination of Backup Alarm Masked Threshold in Construction Noise","abstract":"Sound transmission devices have advanced filtering abilities that theoretically protect the ear from harmful Masking noise while amplifying the sounds that need to be heard, such as backup alarms. Therefore, such devices should provide improved signal detection in noise when compared to their passive counterparts. The masked threshold of a vehicular backup alarm was determined for audiometrically normal and non-normal hearers using two types of sound transmission devices and their passive counterparts within pink noise and milling machine noise at intensities of 75, 85, 95 and 105 dBA. Results indicated that the sound transmission devices did not have any statistically significant advantages over the passive devices with respect to masked threshold of a backup alarm. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that these devices offer advantage over similar passive devices with respect to signal detection. Additionally, ratings of comfort and the ability to detect the alarm for each device were gathered. Both scales did not show any significant differences between the two device types.","abstract_html":"Sound transmission devices have advanced filtering abilities that theoretically protect the ear from harmful Masking noise while amplifying the sounds that need to be heard, such as backup alarms. Therefore, such devices should provide improved signal detection in noise when compared to their passive counterparts. The masked threshold of a vehicular backup alarm was determined for audiometrically normal and non-normal hearers using two types of sound transmission devices and their passive counterparts within pink noise and milling machine noise at intensities of 75, 85, 95 and 105 dBA. Results indicated that the sound transmission devices did not have any statistically significant advantages over the passive devices with respect to masked threshold of a backup alarm. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that these devices offer advantage over similar passive devices with respect to signal detection. Additionally, ratings of comfort and the ability to detect the alarm for each device were gathered. Both scales did not show any significant differences between the two device types.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Muchenje, Lovejoy"],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Science","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Industrial and Systems Engineering","degree_department":"Industrial and Systems Engineering","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Casali, John G.","Lancaster, Jeff A."],"committee_members":["Smith-Jackson, Tonya L."],"year":2008,"date_issued":"2008-05-01","date_published":"2008-05-01","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:18:52Z","subjects":["masked threshold","masking","noise","frequency","HPD","decibel"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-06042008-203917"],"render_values":[{"text":"etd-06042008-203917","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/33419","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Casali, John G.","Lancaster, Jeff A."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Smith-Jackson, Tonya L."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Industrial and Systems Engineering"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Muchenje, Lovejoy"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-03-14T20:39:21Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-03-14T20:39:21Z","2008-07-25"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2008-05-01"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Industrial and Systems Engineering"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["masked threshold","masking","noise","frequency","HPD","decibel"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-06042008-203917"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/33419"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Sound transmission devices have advanced filtering abilities that theoretically protect the ear from harmful Masking noise while amplifying the sounds that need to be heard, such as backup alarms. Therefore, such devices should provide improved signal detection in noise when compared to their passive counterparts. The masked threshold of a vehicular backup alarm was determined for audiometrically normal and non-normal hearers using two types of sound transmission devices and their passive counterparts within pink noise and milling machine noise at intensities of 75, 85, 95 and 105 dBA. Results indicated that the sound transmission devices did not have any statistically significant advantages over the passive devices with respect to masked threshold of a backup alarm. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that these devices offer advantage over similar passive devices with respect to signal detection. Additionally, ratings of comfort and the ability to detect the alarm for each device were gathered. Both scales did not show any significant differences between the two device types."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Determination of Backup Alarm Masked Threshold in Construction Noise"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Casali, John G.","Lancaster, Jeff A."],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Smith-Jackson, Tonya L."],"dc:contributor.department":["Industrial and Systems Engineering"],"dc:creator":["Muchenje, Lovejoy"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-03-14T20:39:21Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-03-14T20:39:21Z","2008-07-25"],"dc:date.issued":["2008-05-01"],"dc:description.abstract":["Sound transmission devices have advanced filtering abilities that theoretically protect the ear from harmful Masking noise while amplifying the sounds that need to be heard, such as backup alarms. Therefore, such devices should provide improved signal detection in noise when compared to their passive counterparts. The masked threshold of a vehicular backup alarm was determined for audiometrically normal and non-normal hearers using two types of sound transmission devices and their passive counterparts within pink noise and milling machine noise at intensities of 75, 85, 95 and 105 dBA. Results indicated that the sound transmission devices did not have any statistically significant advantages over the passive devices with respect to masked threshold of a backup alarm. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that these devices offer advantage over similar passive devices with respect to signal detection. Additionally, ratings of comfort and the ability to detect the alarm for each device were gathered. Both scales did not show any significant differences between the two device types."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Science"],"dc:identifier.other":["etd-06042008-203917"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/33419"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:subject":["masked threshold","masking","noise","frequency","HPD","decibel"],"dc:title":["Determination of Backup Alarm Masked Threshold in Construction Noise"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Industrial and Systems Engineering"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:18:52Z"}