Exposure to noise is a one of the common problems in any industrial places. Many solutions have been introduced to overcome the deleterious effects of noise pollution maintaining and repairing systems in the equipments, environmental control and hearing conservation systems are some of these solutions that could be mentioned.
There are various types of Hearing protection devices and each one is useful under special circumstances. Commonly, different Hearing protection devices have a particular brochure to introduce information about the manufacturers and the quality of noise reduction in that special production.
Three different methods are commonly used to determine the noise reduction factor in various Hearing protection devices. All these methods have been presented based on the mathematical evaluations and according to the spectral features of the sound existing in the environment and then the sound pressure level is determined in dBA. In the current article we will have a look on the mentioned arithmetic models and their special characteristics.

Background and Aim: Sound conditioning is exposure to a non-traumatic, moderate level of sound which increases inner ear resistance against further severe noise. In this study, we aimed to survey the effect of sound conditioning on auditory brainstem response (ABR) threshold shifts using click stimulus, and the effect of the frequency of conditioning on hearing protection.
Methods: Fifteen guinea pigs were randomly divided into 3 groups. Two conditioned groups were exposed to 1 kHz, and 4 kHz octave band noise at 85 dB SPL, 6 hours per day for 5 days, respectively. On the sixth day, the animals were exposed to 4 kHz octave band noise at 105 dB SPL, for 4 hours. The control group was exposed to intense noise, 4 kHz at 105 Db SPL for 4 hours (without conditioning). After exposure, ABR thresholds using click were recorded an hour, and 7 days after noise exposure.
Results: The results of the ABR with click stimulus showed less thresold shifts in conditioned groups than control (p≤0.001). Comparison of the results of conditioned groups, showed less threshold shift by 4 kHz conditioning, however, this difference was not statistically significant (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Electrophysiological data of our study showed that sound conditioning has a protective effect against subsequent intensive noise exposure, and the frequency of conditioning does not have significant effect on ABR threshold shifts when using click stimulus.