DOCSLIB.ORG

Effects of Ultrasonic Noise on the Human Body—A Bibliographic Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effects of Ultrasonic Noise on the Human Body—A Bibliographic Review International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 2013, Vol. 19, No. 2, 195–202 Effects of Ultrasonic Noise on the Human Body—A Bibliographic Review Bożena Smagowska Central Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute, Poland Małgorzata Pawlaczyk-Łuszczyńska Department of Physical Hazards, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódź, Poland Industrial noise in the working environment has adverse effects on human hearing; literature and private studies confirm that. It has been determined that significant changes in the hearing threshold level occur in the high frequency audiometry, i.e., in the 8–20 kHz frequency range. Therefore, it is important to determine the effect of ultrasonic noise (10–40 kHz) on the human body in the working environment. This review describes hearing and nonhearing effects (thermal effects, subjective symptoms and functional changes) of the exposure to noise emitted by ultrasound devices. Many countries have standard health exposure limits to prevent effects of the exposure to ultrasonic noise in the working environment. ultrasonic noise effect working environment 1. INTRODUCTION Many countries (e.g., Germany and France) are working on assessing harmfulness of occupa- Ultrasonic noise is used in many areas of life, tional noise exposure and amending admissible especially in hydrolocation and underwater tele- values in the ultrasonic range. Most countries communication, industry and medicine [1]. The assess ultrasonic noise by measuring equivalent frequency range of ultrasounds is very wide and sound pressure level in one-third-octave bands depends on their use, e.g., from 20 kHz in indus- referred to 8-h noise exposure at workstations [2]. trial devices to 10 MHz in medical diagnostics France determines admissible values of ultrasonic and therapy. In industry, ultrasounds are used in noise and recommends limiting noise exposure in consumer devices such as burglar alarms, dog the high audible frequency range (8–20 kHz) and whistles, bird and rodent repellents, humidifiers the low-frequency ultrasonic range (20–50 kHz). and inhalers. The increasing number of people In Poland, ultrasonic noise is assumed, for practi- exposed to ultrasounds is the consequence of its cal reasons, as noise whose spectrum includes increasingly common use of ultrasounds in tech- high audible and low ultrasonic frequencies (i.e., nology, medicine and everyday life. This gener- 10–40 kHz) [3]. ates interest in the impact of ultrasounds on the The main sources of ultrasonic noise in the human body and health. The frequency that sepa- working environment are low-frequency ultra- rates different mechanisms of biological impact sonic devices like ultrasonic washers, welding of ultrasounds on the human body is 100 kHz. and erosion machines, manual soldering irons This paper was based on the results of a research task carried out within the scope of the first stage of the National Programme “Improvement of safety and working conditions” partly supported in 2008–2010—within the scope of research and development—by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education/National Centre for Research and Development. The Central Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute was the Programme’s main co-ordinator. Correspondence should be sent to Bożena Smagowska, CIOP-PIB, ul. Czerniakowska 16, 00-701 Warszawa, Poland. E-mail: [email protected]. 195 196 B. SMAGOWSKA & M. PAWLACZYK-ŁUSZCZYŃSKA and tanks for tinplating [4, 5, 6, 7]. Ultrasounds 17–37 kHz and intensity of 148–154 dB [14]. In produced in these devices are necessary for tech- their environmental studies, Grzesik and Pluta nological processes. Industrial ultrasonic noise is observed NIHL at 13–17 kHz in workers exposed also produced as a side effect of aerodynamic or to ultrasonic noise over several years of work mechanical processes [8]. High-frequency ultra- with washers and welding machines at level sounds (over 0.8 MHz), which are used in medi- exceeding 80 dB [15]. They also reported that cine, mainly in therapy and diagnostics, do not high-frequency hearing loss would aggravate at a belong to the category of ultrasonic noise; there- rate of 1 dB per year of work in workers exposed fore, this article does not discuss them. to noise emitted by those machines. First reports on the negative effects of ultra- A study of dentists using dental scalers sonic noise on the human body were published in (25–42 kHz) showed that a short exposure to the 1940s and 1950s. In this period, the now- ultrasonic noise did not cause hearing loss at obsolete term ultrasonic disease described symp- 0.5–8 kHz, except for a slight hearing impairment toms associated with exposure to noise, including at 3 kHz [16]. However, in that study, hearing low-frequency ultrasonic, mostly subjective thresholds with the range of higher frequencies, symptoms of exposed workers [9, 10, 11]. Cur- i.e., 8–16 kHz, were not established for dentists. rently, the effects of exposure to ultrasonic noise There are several reports on studies on hearing are classified as effects of hearing, thermal perception of sounds with frequencies over effects, subjective symptoms and functional dis- 20 kHz. According to Henry and Fast, most lis- orders [12]. teners in their study registered sounds with sound Low-frequency ultrasonics of high intensities pressure level of 124 dB and a frequency of may also cause mechanical effects on the human 24 kHz [17]. Ashihara, Kurakata, Mizunami, et body like cavitation in liquids. This effect is neg- al. obtained similar results by registering ligible in ultrasounds propagated in the air, responses to tone signals with a frequency of because only level over 190 dB could cause it in 24 kHz and sound pressure level not over 88 dB the human body [13]. However, this is practically [18]. impossible as a lethal sound pressure level for the Reports on the perception of ultrasounds trans- human body is ~180 dB [14]. mitted through the bone pathway with frequen- cies over 24 kHz are valuable. Fujimoto, Naka- gawa and Tonoike [19] and Lenhardt [20] 2. EFFECTS OF ULTRASONIC showed that bone-conducted ultrasounds masked NOISE ON HEARING (increased the detection threshold) signals of 10–14 kHz and even up to 19 kHz transmitted Human hearing covers frequencies between through the air pathway [14]. Ultrasounds of 20 Hz and 20 kHz. With the ageing process, the 12–16 kHz masking bone-conduction caused an range narrows in high frequencies. The results of increase in the hearing threshold by 15–22 dB. environmental and laboratory studies in the 1960s Furthermore, masking curves for noise of middle showed that the temporary threshold shift (TTS) frequencies (26 and 39 kHz) resembled an aver- and the permanent threshold shift (PTS) of age audiogram of people with hearing deficien- 0.25–10 kHz resulting from exposure to ultra- cies caused by years of exposure to ultrasonic sonic noise did not exceed 10–15 dB or was not noise. observed at all if sound pressure level did not According to Lenhardt, exposure to audible exceed ~120 dB [9]. high-frequency sounds and ultrasonic signals However, ultrasonic noise of over 8 kHz may exceeding the hearing range may increase the risk cause noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). of hearing damage as a result of an overlap of According to Parrack, TTS of 8–18 kHz resulted stimuli originating from both these signals in the from a short-term exposure to signals of inner ear [20]. JOSE 2013, Vol. 19, No. 2 EFFECT OF ULTRASONIC NOISE ON HUMAN BODY 197 3. THERMAL EFFECTS spectrum are, above all, responsible for subjec- tive symptoms among workers exposed to noise Studies in small animals showed that thermal emitted by ultrasonic devices [9]. However, effects of ultrasonic noise appeared at relatively according to Smith, Nixon and von Gierke, sig- high sound pressure level. According to Allen, nals with frequencies over ~17 kHz and level Rudnik and Frings, a mouse dies from overheat- exceeding 70 dB may cause negative symptoms ing after 10 s to 3 min of exposure to a signal of among exposed workers such as excessive 20 kHz and level of 160 dB [10]. According to fatigue, nausea, ear fullness and headache [24]. Danner, a lethal level for signals of 18–20 kHz Holemberg, Landström and Nordström exposed for an unshaven mouse were 144 dB and for a 10 workers for 2 min to noise of an ultrasonic shaven mouse 155 dB [21]. Acton obtained simi- washer, then the workers assessed discomfort and lar results and extended studies to larger animals irritation. They concluded that noise emitted by such as guinea pigs and rabbits [22]. The mis- ultrasonic washers with level over 75 dB(A) match of acoustic impedance between the air and caused annoyance and discomfort [25]. human skin tissue prevents, at considerable In 2005, studies on exposure to noise were con- extent, penetration of ultrasonic energy in the ducted among 166 production plants workers, human body and, therefore, only relatively high who reported high-frequency and ultrasonic noise intensities of ultrasonic waves can be dangerous at their workstations. The workers defined it as for the human body. wheezing, whistling or squeaky. Over 84% of First reports, written in 1948, on the thermal workers had follow-up hearing examinations. effects of ultrasounds on the human body Subjective assessment showed that 13% of par- described burns on the hand skin between fingers ticipants had poor hearing and 50% had difficul- from accidental exposure to a signal with a fre- ties with hearing normal speech [26, 27, 28, 29]. quency of 20 kHz and level of 165 dB [10, 11]. Pawlaczyk-Łuszczyńska, Dudarewicz and Ultrasounds at level of 159 dB may cause moder- Śliwińska-Kowalska studied the effect of ultra- ate warming of the surface of the human body; sonic noise among 25 operators of ultrasonic according to computational simulations, exposure welding machines, mainly women aged 20–56 to ultrasounds for ~50 min at level of at least [30].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Underwater Acoustics: Webinar Series for the International Regulatory Community
    Underwater Acoustics: Webinar Series for the International Regulatory Community Webinar Outline: Marine Animal Sound Production and Reception Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 12:00pm (US East Coast Time) Sound production and reception in teleost fish (M. Clara P. Amorim, Ispa – Instituto Universitário) • Teleost fish are likely the largest vocal vertebrate group. Sounds made by fish can be an important part of marine soundscapes. • Fish possess the most diversified sonic mechanisms among vertebrates, which include the vibration of the swim bladder through intrinsic or extrinsic sonic muscles, as well as the rubbing of bony elements. • Fish sounds are usually pulsed (each sonic muscle contraction corresponds to a sound pulse), short (typically shorter than 1 s) and broadband (with most energy below 1 kHz), although some fish produce tonal sounds. Sounds generated by bony elements are often higher frequency (up to a few kHz). • In contrast with terrestrial vertebrates, fish have no external or middle ear. Fish detect sounds with the inner ear, which comprises three semicircular canals and three otolithic end organs, the utricle, the saccule and the lagena. Fish mostly detect particle motion and hear up to 1 kHz. Some species have evolved accessory auditory structures that serve as pressures transducers and present enhanced hearing sensitivity and increased frequency detection up to several kHz. Fish hearing seems to have evolved independently of sound production and is important to detect the ‘auditory scene’. • Acoustic signals are produced during social interactions or during distress situations as in insects or other vertebrates. Sounds are important in mate attraction, courtship and spawning or to defend a territory and gain access to food.
    [Show full text]
  • Advance and Unedited Reporting Material (English Only)
    13 March 2018 (corr.) Advance and unedited reporting material (English only) Seventy-third session Oceans and the law of the sea Report of the Secretary-General Summary In paragraph 339 of its resolution 71/257, as reiterated in paragraph 354 of resolution 72/73, the General Assembly decided that the United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea would focus its discussions at its nineteenth meeting on the topic “Anthropogenic underwater noise”. The present report was prepared pursuant to paragraph 366 of General Assembly resolution 72/73 with a view to facilitating discussions on the topic of focus. It is being submitted for consideration by the General Assembly and also to the States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, pursuant to article 319 of the Convention. Contents Page I. Introduction ............................................................... II. Nature and sources of anthropogenic underwater noise III. Environmental and socioeconomic aspects IV. Current activities and further needs with regard to cooperation and coordination in addressing anthropogenic underwater noise V. Conclusions ............................................................... 2 I. Introduction 1. The marine environment is subject to a wide array of human-made noise. Many human activities with socioeconomic significance introduce sound into the marine environment either intentionally for a specific purpose (e.g., seismic surveys) or unintentionally as a by-product of their activities (e.g., shipping). In addition, there is a range of natural sound sources from physical and biological origins such as wind, waves, swell patterns, currents, earthquakes, precipitation and ice, as well as the sounds produced by marine animals for communication, orientation, navigation and foraging.
    [Show full text]
  • Large Scale Sound Installation Design: Psychoacoustic Stimulation
    LARGE SCALE SOUND INSTALLATION DESIGN: PSYCHOACOUSTIC STIMULATION An Interactive Qualifying Project Report submitted to the Faculty of the WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science by Taylor H. Andrews, CS 2012 Mark E. Hayden, ECE 2012 Date: 16 December 2010 Professor Frederick W. Bianchi, Advisor Abstract The brain performs a vast amount of processing to translate the raw frequency content of incoming acoustic stimuli into the perceptual equivalent. Psychoacoustic processing can result in pitches and beats being “heard” that do not physically exist in the medium. These psychoac- oustic effects were researched and then applied in a large scale sound design. The constructed installations and acoustic stimuli were designed specifically to combat sensory atrophy by exer- cising and reinforcing the listeners’ perceptual skills. i Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ i Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. iii Table of Tables .............................................................................................................................. iv Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Audiogram
    Recently,Recently, I’veI’ve been trying to orga- evaluations, and they are truly im- nize some of the columns and articles pressive, the information and insights RI’veI’ve written overover the past ten years.years. provided by the simple audiogram As I was looking through them, it be- can still provide the most pertinent came apparent that I’ve neglected to information to explain the behavioral discuss what is perhaps the implications of a hearing loss. most important hearing di- Perhaps the most important in- mension of all, the simple sight of all is an appreciation of how The audiogram. specifi c audiograms impact upon the In reality, however, perception of certain speech sounds. the “simple” audiogram, Without including speech in the Audiogram: and particularly its im- equation, it is simply not possible to Audiogram: plications, is not quite so intelligibly discuss the audiogram. simple. Even though just This, after all, is the signal we are about everybody who re- most interested in hearing (not to Explanation ceives a hearing aid has his minimize the specifi c needs of certain or her hearing tested with groups of people for other types of a pure-tone audiometer, sounds, such as musicians). and not everybody receives a comprehensive explanation Figure One Audiogram — of exactly what the results The “Speech Banana” Signifi cance mean and what the impli- cations are for them. The audiogram of a fairly typical And even for those who audiogram can be seen in Figure 1. do, at a time when prospec- (My thanks to Brad Ingrao for creat- By Mark Ross tive hearing aid purchasers ing these fi gures for me.) Let’s fi rst go are being inundated with through the fundamentals.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix J Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic
    APPENDIX J FISH HEARING AND SENSITIVITY TO ACOUSTIC IMPACTS Fish Hearing and Sensitivity to Acoustic Impacts J-iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ J-1 1.1. What is Injury for Fishes?........................................................................................................ J-1 1.2. Fish........................................................................................................................................... J-1 1.3. Fish Bioacoustics – Overview.................................................................................................. J-2 1.4. Metrics of Sound Exposure...................................................................................................... J-2 2. BACKGROUND ON FISH HEARING........................................................................................... J-3 2.1. Sound in Water ........................................................................................................................ J-3 2.2. Hearing Sensitivity................................................................................................................... J-3 2.3. Other Aspects of Fish Hearing................................................................................................. J-7 3. EFFECTS OF HUMAN-GENERATED SOUND ON FISHES – OVERVIEW ............................. J-8 4. EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC SOUNDS ON HEARING .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • How Good Is Your Hearing? HEARING RANGE
    Exhibit Sheet How good is your hearing? HEARING RANGE (Type) Ages Topic Time Science 7-14 Sound <10 mins background Skills used Observations - Curiosity Overview for adults Hearing Range lets you test your hearing. As you listen through headphones, sounds of different frequencies are played, starting quietly and getting louder. You press a button when you hear the sound and at the end get an estimate of your “hearing age”. What’s the science? Frequency is the number of sound waves per second. It’s measured in hertz (Hz). Humans can hear sounds at frequencies between 20 hertz (a cat purring) and 20,000 hertz (a bat squeaking). The sounds you can hear are linked to your age. An 8-year-old hears the widest range of sounds. Then, as you get older, it becomes harder to hear high-frequency sounds. Science in your world Different animals have different hearing ranges. Dogs and cats can hear much higher sounds than we can – up to 50,000hz. That’s why dog whistles work. They produce really high frequency sounds that we can’t hear but dogs can hear them loud and clear. Things to think and talk about … Why do you think hearing gets worse as you get older? What could make your hearing better or worse? Things to investigate … How good is your hearing? Who the best hearing in your group? Are they the youngest? Museum links When microphones were invented, they could only pick up small ranges of frequencies. To record people speaking, you needed lots of different microphones of different sizes – from tiny ones to pick up high frequency sounds to big ones to pick up the low frequency sounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Audiology 101: an Introduction to Audiology for Nonaudiologists Terry Foust, Aud, FAAA, CC-SLP/A; & Jeff Hoffman, MS, CCC-A
    NATIONALA RESOURCE CENTER GUIDE FOR FOR EARLY HEARING HEARING ASSESSMENT DETECTION & & MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION Chapter 5 Audiology 101: An Introduction to Audiology for Nonaudiologists Terry Foust, AuD, FAAA, CC-SLP/A; & Jeff Hoffman, MS, CCC-A Parents of young Introduction What is an audiologist? children who are arents of young children who are An audiologist is a specialist in hearing identified as deaf or hard identified as deaf or hard of hearing and balance who typically works in of hearing (DHH) are P(DHH) are suddenly thrust into a either a medical, private practice, or an suddenly thrust into a world of new concepts and a bewildering educational setting. The primary roles of world of new concepts array of terms. What’s a decibel or hertz? an audiologist include the identification and a bewildering array What does sensorineural mean? Is a and assessment of hearing and balance moderate hearing loss one to be concerned problems, the habilitation or rehabilitation of terms. about, since it’s only moderate? What’s of hearing and balance problems, and the a tympanogram or a cochlear implant? prevention of hearing loss. When working These are just a few of the many questions with infants and young children, the that a parent whose child has been primary focus of audiology is hearing. identified as DHH may have. In addition to parents, questions also arise from Audiologists are licensed by the state in professionals and paraprofessionals who which they practice and may be members work in the field of early hearing detection of the American Speech-Language- and intervention (EHDI) and are not Hearing Association (ASHA), American audiologists.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Behavioral and Auditory Brainstem Response
    A Dissertation entitled A Comparison of Behavioral and Auditory Brainstem Response Measures of Hearing in the Laboratory Rat (Rattus norvegicus) By Evan M. Hill Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Psychology ________________________________________ ______________ Dr. Henry Heffner, Committee Chair ______________________________________ ________________ Dr. Harvard Armus, Committee Member ______________________________________________________ Dr. Stephen Christman, Committee Member ______________________________________________________ Dr. Kamala London, Committee Member ______________________________________________________ Dr. Lori Pakulski, Committee Member ______________________________________________________ Dr. Patricia R. Komuniecki, Dean College of Graduate Studies The University of Toledo December 2011 i ii An Abstract of A Comparison of Behavioral and Auditory Brainstem Response Measures of Hearing in the Laboratory Rat (Rattus norvegicus) by Evan M. Hill Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Psychology The University of Toledo December 2011 The basic measure of an animal‘s hearing is the behavioral, pure-tone audiogram, which shows an animal‘s sensitivity to pure tones throughout its hearing range. Because obtaining a behavioral audiogram on an animal can take months, the tone-evoked auditory brainstem response (ABR) is often used instead to obtain thresholds. Although the tone-evoked ABR is obtained quickly and with relative ease, it does not accurately reflect an animal‘s behavioral sensitivity to pure tones. Because several lines of evidence suggested that using narrow-band noise to evoke the ABR might give a more accurate measure, ABR thresholds evoked by one-octave noise bands and short-duration tones (tone pips) were compared in rats to determine which most closely estimated the animals‘ behavioral, pure-tone thresholds.
    [Show full text]
  • Audiology Staff At
    3rd Edition contributions from and compilation by the VA Audiology staff at Mountain Home, Tennessee with contributions from the VA Audiology staffs at Long Beach, California and Nashville, Tennessee Department of Veterans Affairs Spring, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ...................................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 TYPES OF HEARING LOSS ...........................................................................................1 DIAGNOSTIC AUDIOLOGY ............................................................................................3 Case History ...............................................................................................................3 Otoscopic Examination ..............................................................................................3 Pure-Tone Audiometry ...............................................................................................3 Masking ......................................................................................................................6 Audiometric Tuning Fork Tests ..................................................................................6 Examples of Pure-Tone Audiograms ........................................................................7 Speech Audiometry ....................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Short- and Long-Term Monitoring of Underwater Sound Levels in the Hudson River (New York, USA)
    Short- and long-term monitoring of underwater sound levels in the Hudson River (New York, USA) S. Bruce Martina) JASCO Applied Sciences, 32 Troop Avenue, Suite 202, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B3B 1Z1, Canada Arthur N. Popper Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA (Received 20 June 2015; revised 22 January 2016; accepted 15 March 2016; published online 18 April 2016) There is a growing body of research on natural and man-made sounds that create aquatic soundscapes. Less is known about the soundscapes of shallow waters, such as in harbors, rivers, and lakes. Knowledge of soundscapes is needed as a baseline against which to determine the changes in noise levels resulting from human activities. To provide baseline data for the Hudson River at the site of the Tappan Zee Bridge, 12 acoustic data loggers were deployed for a 24-h period at ranges of 0–3000 m from the bridge, and four of the data loggers were re-deployed for three months of continu- ous recording. Results demonstrate that this region of the river is relatively quiet compared to open ocean conditions and other large river systems. Moreover, the soundscape had temporal and spatial diversity. The temporal patterns of underwater noise from the bridge change with the cadence of human activity. Bridge noise (e.g., road traffic) was only detected within 300 m; farther from the bridge, boating activity increased sound levels during the day, and especially on the weekend. Results also suggest that recording near the river bottom produced lower pseudo-noise levels than previous studies that recorded in the river water column.
    [Show full text]
  • THE AUDITORY RANGE of a HAIRY WOODPECKER by WARRENK
    Mar., 1965 183 THE AUDITORY RANGE OF A HAIRY WOODPECKER By WARRENK. RAMP An experiment was conducted to determine the auditory range of a Hairy Wood- pecker (Dendrocopos vdlosus) through means of a conditioned response. The bird used had been taught to respond to sounds emitted from a pure tone audiometer by flying to an artificial feeding hole in a spruce log. This response then served to indicate whether or not the bird was hearing a given frequency. A survey of the literature shows that no determination of the hearing range of the Hairy Woodpecker has been made previously. Similar studies utilizing condi- tioned response have been made on other birds. Brand and Kellogg (Wilson Bull., 51, 1939 : 38-41) have reported the range in the English Sparrow (Passer domesticus) as 675-11,500 cycles per second (c.P.s.) and in the Domestic Pigeon (CoZ~mba Zivia) as 200-7500 c.p.s. The upper limit of hearing of the Starling (Sturnus v&g&s) has been shown to be 16,000 c.p.s. (Frings and Cook, Condor, 66, 1964:56-60). These and other studies have failed to indicate an accurate measurement of the sound pressure level used. It is felt that, unless the sound level is measured in air at a constant distance from the sound source, the validity of the results is questionable. In terms of amplitude, a speaker system has a frequency range through which it responds best. Hence, even if the output to the speakers is calibrated, a true evalua- tion of sound levels received by the bird cannot be obtained unless a sound level meter is used.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Malingering Characteristics and Strategies During Hearing Assessment Sarah Michelle Thompson
    University of Northern Colorado Scholarship & Creative Works @ Digital UNC Capstones Student Research 5-2017 Evaluation of Malingering Characteristics and Strategies During Hearing Assessment Sarah Michelle Thompson Follow this and additional works at: http://digscholarship.unco.edu/capstones Recommended Citation Thompson, Sarah Michelle, "Evaluation of Malingering Characteristics and Strategies During Hearing Assessment" (2017). Capstones. 19. http://digscholarship.unco.edu/capstones/19 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at Scholarship & Creative Works @ Digital UNC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Capstones by an authorized administrator of Scholarship & Creative Works @ Digital UNC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ©2017 SARAH MICHELLE THOMPSON ALL RIGHTS RESERVED UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO Greeley, Colorado The Graduate School EVALUATION OF MALINGERING CHARACTERISTICS AND STRATEGIES DURING HEARING ASSESSMENT A Capstone Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Audiology Sarah Michelle Thompson College of Natural and Health Sciences School of Human Sciences Audiology & Speech-Language Sciences May 2017 This Capstone Project by: Sarah Michelle Thompson Entitled: Evaluation of Malingering Characteristics and Strategies During Hearing Assessment Has been approved as meeting the requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Audiology in the College of Natural and Health Sciences in the School of Human Sciences, Program of Audiology and Speech-Language Sciences Accepted by the Capstone Research Committee Kathryn Bright, Ph.D., Co-Research Advisor Tina M. Stoody, Ph.D., Co-Research Advisor Kathleen Fahey, Ph.D., Committee Member Accepted by the Graduate School Linda L. Black, Ed.D. Associate Provost and Dean Graduate School and International Admission ABSTRACT Thompson, Sarah Michelle.
    [Show full text]