{"title":"Personal Listening Device, Personal Headphones, and Song Choice's Influence on Preferred Listening Levels.","authors":"Monica C Amarante, Thomas R Zalewski","doi":"10.1044/2025_AJA-24-00247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in preferred listening levels when altering song choice, listening device, and transducer (headphone) type, while controlling previously uncontrolled variables.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Twenty-one college students completed the repeated-measures design. Pure-tone audiometry and distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) were completed pre- and postmethods to determine the presence of a temporary threshold shift (TTS). The external auditory meatus sound pressure level (EAM SPL) was measured as participants listened to the researchers' and their songs via their personal device and the researchers' computer using in-the-ear, over-the-ear, in-the-canal, and their personal transducers. Paired <i>t</i> tests were completed on pure-tone thresholds and DPOAE amplitude. A four-factor multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA; <i>p</i> = .05) investigated the presence of an EAM SPL difference between songs, transducers, and devices. A second four-factor MANOVA investigated a difference between the participants' and matched researchers' transducers by ear, song, and device.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No TTS was identified. The computer produced significantly lower EAM SPL compared to the participants' device. Over-the-ear transducers produced significantly lower EAM SPLs compared to in-the-ear, in-the-canal, and the participants' transducers. The participants' transducers produced significantly lower EAM SPLs compared to in-the-canal style.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Preferred listening levels are inconsistent across devices. Over-the-ear transducers and the computer present the lowest hearing loss risk as they produced the lowest EAM SPLs. Caution is urged with personal listening device use regarding the duration of listening time and volume levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":49241,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_AJA-24-00247","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in preferred listening levels when altering song choice, listening device, and transducer (headphone) type, while controlling previously uncontrolled variables.
Method: Twenty-one college students completed the repeated-measures design. Pure-tone audiometry and distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) were completed pre- and postmethods to determine the presence of a temporary threshold shift (TTS). The external auditory meatus sound pressure level (EAM SPL) was measured as participants listened to the researchers' and their songs via their personal device and the researchers' computer using in-the-ear, over-the-ear, in-the-canal, and their personal transducers. Paired t tests were completed on pure-tone thresholds and DPOAE amplitude. A four-factor multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA; p = .05) investigated the presence of an EAM SPL difference between songs, transducers, and devices. A second four-factor MANOVA investigated a difference between the participants' and matched researchers' transducers by ear, song, and device.
Results: No TTS was identified. The computer produced significantly lower EAM SPL compared to the participants' device. Over-the-ear transducers produced significantly lower EAM SPLs compared to in-the-ear, in-the-canal, and the participants' transducers. The participants' transducers produced significantly lower EAM SPLs compared to in-the-canal style.
Conclusions: Preferred listening levels are inconsistent across devices. Over-the-ear transducers and the computer present the lowest hearing loss risk as they produced the lowest EAM SPLs. Caution is urged with personal listening device use regarding the duration of listening time and volume levels.
期刊介绍:
Mission: AJA publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles pertaining to clinical audiology methods and issues, and serves as an outlet for discussion of related professional and educational issues and ideas. The journal is an international outlet for research on clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, management and outcomes of hearing and balance disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. The clinical orientation of the journal allows for the publication of reports on audiology as implemented nationally and internationally, including novel clinical procedures, approaches, and cases. AJA seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work.
Scope: The broad field of clinical audiology, including audiologic/aural rehabilitation; balance and balance disorders; cultural and linguistic diversity; detection, diagnosis, prevention, habilitation, rehabilitation, and monitoring of hearing loss; hearing aids, cochlear implants, and hearing-assistive technology; hearing disorders; lifespan perspectives on auditory function; speech perception; and tinnitus.