Verbal communication in MR environments: Effect of MR system acoustic noise on speech understanding

Radiology

Volumn 232, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 107-113

  Moelker, Adriaan ^a   Maas, Ronald A J J ^a   Pattynama, Peter M T ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Magnetic resonance (MR), biological effects; Magnetic resonance (MR), functional imaging; Magnetic resonance (MR), guidance; Magnetic resonance (MR), safety

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY MASKING; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LOUDNESS; MALE; NOISE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OPERATOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; VERBAL COMMUNICATION;

ACOUSTICS; ADULT; EAR PROTECTIVE DEVICES; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; NOISE, OCCUPATIONAL; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST;

EID: 2942703922     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2321030955     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. McJury M, Shellock FG. Auditory noise associated with MR procedures: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12:37-45.
2. Edelstein WA, Hedeen RA, Mallozzi RP, El-Hamamsy SA, Ackermann RA, Havens TJ. Making MR1 quieter. Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 20:155-163.
3. Shah NJ, Steinhoff S, Mirzazade S, et al. The effect of sequence repeat time on auditory cortex stimulation during phonetic discrimination. Neuroimage 2000; 12:100-108.
4. Mohr CM, King WM, Freeman AJ, Briggs RW, Leonard CM. Influence of speech stimuli intensity on the activation of auditory cortex investigated with functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105:2738-2745.
5. Ravicz ME, Melcher JR. Isolating the auditory system from acoustic noise during functional magnetic resonance imaging: examination of noise conduction through the ear canal, head, and body. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 109:216-231.
6. Chen CK, Chiueh TD, Chen JH. Active cancellation system of acoustic noise in MR imaging. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1999; 46:186-191.
7. Abel SM, Spencer DL. Speech understanding in noise with earplugs and muffs in combination. Appl Acoust 1999; 57:61-68.
8. Abel SM, Spencer DL. Active noise reduction versus conventional hearing protection: relative benefits for normal-hearing and impaired listeners. Scand Audiol 1997; 26:155-167.
9. Plomp R, Mimpen AM. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 1979; 18:43-52.
10. American National Standard S1.13-1995. Measurement of sound pressure levels in air. Melville, NY: Acoustical Society of America, 1995.
11. American National Standard S3.79-1993. Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility index. Melville, NY: Acoustical Society of America, 1993.
12. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational noise exposure - revised criteria, 1998. Publication no. 98-126. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1998.
13. Festen JM, Plomp R. Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 79: 465-471.
14. Van Wijngaarden SJ, Steeneken HJ, Houtgast T. Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111:1906-1916.
15. Versfeld NJ, Daalder L, Festen JM, Houtgast T. Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107:1671-1684.
16. Van Wijngaarden SJ, Steeneken HJ, Houtgast T. Quantifying the intelligibility of speech in noise for non-native talkers. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 112:3004-3013.
17. Moelker A, Vogel MW, Pattynama PM. Efficacy of passive acoustic screening: implications for the design of imager and MR-suite. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003; 17:270-275.
18. Parrish T. Functional MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1999; 7:765-782.
19. Shellock FG, Morisoli SM, Ziarati M. Measurement of acoustic noise during MR imaging: evaluation of six "worst-case" pulse sequences. Radiology 1994; 191:91-93.
20. Guidance for the submission of premarket notifications for magnetic resonance diagnostic devices. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 1998.
21. Counter SA, Olofsson A, Borg E, Bjelke B, Haggstrom A, Grahn HF. Analysis of magnetic resonance imaging acoustic noise generated by a 4.7 T experimental system. Acta Otolaryngol 2000; 120:739-743.
22. American National Standard S3.44-1996. Determination of occupational noise exposure and estimation of noise-induced hearing impairment. Melville, NY: Acoustical Society of America, 1996.
23. Steeneken HJ, Houtgast T. Basics of the ST1 measuring method. In: Van Wijngaarden SJ, ed. Past, present and future of the Speech Transmission Index. Soesterberg, the Netherlands: TNO Human Factors, 2002; 13-43.
24. Toivonen M, Paakkonen R, Savolainen S, Lehtomaki K. Noise attenuation and proper insertion of earplugs into ear canals. Ann Occup Hyg 2002; 46:527-530.
25. Moelker A, Maas RA, Lethimonnier F, Pattynama PM. Interventional MR imaging at 1.5 T: quantification of sound exposure. Radiology 2002; 224:889-895.
26. Plomp R. A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res 1986; 29:146-154.
27. Brand T, Kollmeier B. Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111:2801-2810.
28. Saunders GH, Cienkowski KM. A test to measure subjective and objective speech intelligibility. J Am Acad Audiol 2002; 13: 38-49.
29. Plomp R, Mimpen AM. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. J Acoust Soc Am 1979; 66:1333-1342.
30. Van Wijngaarden SJ, Steeneken HJ. Objective prediction of speech intelligibility at high ambient noise levels using the speech transmission index. Presented at the Sixth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech 1999), Budapest, Hungary, September 5-9, 1999.
31. Moelker A, Vogel MW, Pattynama PM. Real-time modulation of acoustic gradient noise in interventional MR1. Concepts Magn Reson 2004; 20:34-39.
32. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) CFR-1910.165, Federal Regulations. Employee alarm systems (Occupational Safety and Health Standards). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1981.
33. Amaro E Jr, Williams SC, Shergill SS, et al. Acoustic noise and functional magnetic resonance imaging: current strategies and future prospects. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 16:497-510.
34. Bandettini PA, Jesmanowicz A, Van Kylen J, Birn RM, Hyde JS. Functional MR1 of brain activation induced by scanner acoustic noise. Magn Reson Med 1998; 39:410-416.
35. Cho ZH, Chung SC, Lim DW, Wong EK. Effects of the acoustic noise of the gradient systems on fMRI: a study on auditory, motor, and visual cortices. Magn Reson Med 1998; 39:331-335.
36. Bartels LW, Bakker CJ. Endovascular interventional magnetic resonance imaging. Phys Med Biol 2003; 48:R37-R64.
37. Campeau NG, Huston J 3rd, Bernstein MA, Lin C, Gibbs GF. Magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0 Tesla: initial clinical experience. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 12:183-204.
38. Moelker A, Wielopolski PA, Pattynama PM. Relationship between magnetic field strength and magnetic-resonance-related acoustic noise levels. MAGMA 2003; 16: 52-55.
39. Foster JR, Hall DA, Summerfield AQ, Palmer AR, Bowtell RW. Sound-level measurements and calculations of safe noise dosage during EP1 at 3 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12:157-163.