噪声,职业性%问卷调查%认知能力
譟聲,職業性%問捲調查%認知能力
조성,직업성%문권조사%인지능력
Noise,occupational%Questionnaires%Cognitive ability
目的 探讨模拟高性能战斗机座舱噪声对健康志愿者基本认知操作能力的影响. 方法 采用神经行为测试评价系统-中文第3版测评系统对10名健康志愿者在模拟高性能战斗机座舱噪声108 dB(A)(歼A组)、122 dB(A)(歼-B组)和隔声室的本底噪声35 dB(A)(本底噪声组)背景下进行暴露即刻、30 min、60 min的基本认知操作能力测试;采用美国航空航天任务负荷指数量表评价噪声对心理负荷的影响. 结果 ①在3种噪声背景下以及3个时间段之间,系列加减测试能力指数的比较均无统计学差异.连续识别记忆能力指数的比较:在测试30 min时,歼-B组低于本底噪声组(t=2.084,P<0.05);在测试60 min时,歼-A组、歼-B组低于本底噪声组(t=2.222、2.783,P<0.05或P<0.01).注意力调转能力指数比较:在测试30 min时,歼A组、歼-B组低于本底噪声组(t=3.614、2.342,P<0.05或P<0.01);在测试60 min时,歼-B组低于本底噪声组(t=2.823,P<0.01);在歼-A组,30 min时低于即刻(t=2.583,P<0.05);在歼-B组,60 min时低于即刻(t=2.222,P<0.05).视复杂反应时能力指数的比较:在歼-B组,60 min低于即刻(t=2.369,P<0.05);在测试30 min、60 min时,歼-B组低于本底噪声组(t=2.232、2.961,P<0.05或P<0.01).②在3种噪声背景下以及3个时间段之间,脑力需求、业绩评估的比较均无统计学差异.体力需求结果比较:在测试30 min、60 min时,歼-B组高于本底噪声组(t=2.082、2.154,P<0.05).时间需求结果比较:在测试即刻、30 min时,歼-B组高于本底噪声组(t=2.793、2.792,P<0.01).努力程度结果比较:在测试30 min时,歼-B组高于本底噪声组(t=2.793,P<0.01)和歼-A组(t=2.792,P<0.01);在测试60 min时,歼-B组高于本底噪声组(f=3.572,P<0.01)和歼-A组(t=2.901,P<0.01);在歼-B组,60 min高于30 min(t=2.223,P<0.05).挫折程度结果比较:在测试即刻、60 min时,歼-B组高于本底噪声组(t=2.681、2.139,P<0.05). 结论 模拟高性能战斗机座舱噪声对人的认知能力有一定不良影响,且随着噪声暴露时间的延长和强度的增加影响更为严重;应从设备减噪、机身隔噪、个体防噪以及加强飞行员心理干预等多方面入手,尽量减小高性能战斗机飞机座舱噪声对飞行员认知工效的影响.
目的 探討模擬高性能戰鬥機座艙譟聲對健康誌願者基本認知操作能力的影響. 方法 採用神經行為測試評價繫統-中文第3版測評繫統對10名健康誌願者在模擬高性能戰鬥機座艙譟聲108 dB(A)(殲A組)、122 dB(A)(殲-B組)和隔聲室的本底譟聲35 dB(A)(本底譟聲組)揹景下進行暴露即刻、30 min、60 min的基本認知操作能力測試;採用美國航空航天任務負荷指數量錶評價譟聲對心理負荷的影響. 結果 ①在3種譟聲揹景下以及3箇時間段之間,繫列加減測試能力指數的比較均無統計學差異.連續識彆記憶能力指數的比較:在測試30 min時,殲-B組低于本底譟聲組(t=2.084,P<0.05);在測試60 min時,殲-A組、殲-B組低于本底譟聲組(t=2.222、2.783,P<0.05或P<0.01).註意力調轉能力指數比較:在測試30 min時,殲A組、殲-B組低于本底譟聲組(t=3.614、2.342,P<0.05或P<0.01);在測試60 min時,殲-B組低于本底譟聲組(t=2.823,P<0.01);在殲-A組,30 min時低于即刻(t=2.583,P<0.05);在殲-B組,60 min時低于即刻(t=2.222,P<0.05).視複雜反應時能力指數的比較:在殲-B組,60 min低于即刻(t=2.369,P<0.05);在測試30 min、60 min時,殲-B組低于本底譟聲組(t=2.232、2.961,P<0.05或P<0.01).②在3種譟聲揹景下以及3箇時間段之間,腦力需求、業績評估的比較均無統計學差異.體力需求結果比較:在測試30 min、60 min時,殲-B組高于本底譟聲組(t=2.082、2.154,P<0.05).時間需求結果比較:在測試即刻、30 min時,殲-B組高于本底譟聲組(t=2.793、2.792,P<0.01).努力程度結果比較:在測試30 min時,殲-B組高于本底譟聲組(t=2.793,P<0.01)和殲-A組(t=2.792,P<0.01);在測試60 min時,殲-B組高于本底譟聲組(f=3.572,P<0.01)和殲-A組(t=2.901,P<0.01);在殲-B組,60 min高于30 min(t=2.223,P<0.05).挫摺程度結果比較:在測試即刻、60 min時,殲-B組高于本底譟聲組(t=2.681、2.139,P<0.05). 結論 模擬高性能戰鬥機座艙譟聲對人的認知能力有一定不良影響,且隨著譟聲暴露時間的延長和彊度的增加影響更為嚴重;應從設備減譟、機身隔譟、箇體防譟以及加彊飛行員心理榦預等多方麵入手,儘量減小高性能戰鬥機飛機座艙譟聲對飛行員認知工效的影響.
목적 탐토모의고성능전두궤좌창조성대건강지원자기본인지조작능력적영향. 방법 채용신경행위측시평개계통-중문제3판측평계통대10명건강지원자재모의고성능전두궤좌창조성108 dB(A)(섬A조)、122 dB(A)(섬-B조)화격성실적본저조성35 dB(A)(본저조성조)배경하진행폭로즉각、30 min、60 min적기본인지조작능력측시;채용미국항공항천임무부하지수량표평개조성대심리부하적영향. 결과 ①재3충조성배경하이급3개시간단지간,계렬가감측시능력지수적비교균무통계학차이.련속식별기억능력지수적비교:재측시30 min시,섬-B조저우본저조성조(t=2.084,P<0.05);재측시60 min시,섬-A조、섬-B조저우본저조성조(t=2.222、2.783,P<0.05혹P<0.01).주의력조전능력지수비교:재측시30 min시,섬A조、섬-B조저우본저조성조(t=3.614、2.342,P<0.05혹P<0.01);재측시60 min시,섬-B조저우본저조성조(t=2.823,P<0.01);재섬-A조,30 min시저우즉각(t=2.583,P<0.05);재섬-B조,60 min시저우즉각(t=2.222,P<0.05).시복잡반응시능력지수적비교:재섬-B조,60 min저우즉각(t=2.369,P<0.05);재측시30 min、60 min시,섬-B조저우본저조성조(t=2.232、2.961,P<0.05혹P<0.01).②재3충조성배경하이급3개시간단지간,뇌력수구、업적평고적비교균무통계학차이.체력수구결과비교:재측시30 min、60 min시,섬-B조고우본저조성조(t=2.082、2.154,P<0.05).시간수구결과비교:재측시즉각、30 min시,섬-B조고우본저조성조(t=2.793、2.792,P<0.01).노력정도결과비교:재측시30 min시,섬-B조고우본저조성조(t=2.793,P<0.01)화섬-A조(t=2.792,P<0.01);재측시60 min시,섬-B조고우본저조성조(f=3.572,P<0.01)화섬-A조(t=2.901,P<0.01);재섬-B조,60 min고우30 min(t=2.223,P<0.05).좌절정도결과비교:재측시즉각、60 min시,섬-B조고우본저조성조(t=2.681、2.139,P<0.05). 결론 모의고성능전두궤좌창조성대인적인지능력유일정불량영향,차수착조성폭로시간적연장화강도적증가영향경위엄중;응종설비감조、궤신격조、개체방조이급가강비행원심리간예등다방면입수,진량감소고성능전두궤비궤좌창조성대비행원인지공효적영향.
Objective To discuss the effects of noise in the simulated high performance aircraft cockpit on the cognitive ability of healthy volunteers.Methods Neurobehavioral evaluation systemChinese 3 (NES-C3) was applied to test the cognitive ability of 10 healthy volunteers,who were respectively exposed in 108 dB (A) (J-A group),122 dB (A) (J B group) simulated aircraft cockpit noise environment and in 35 dB (A) (basic noise group) background noise isolation environment.Their basic cognitive ability was respectively tested at 0 min,30 min and 60 min exposure in simulated noise environment.Moreover,National Aeronautics and Space Administration task load index (NASA-TLXL) was conducted to evaluate the effects of noise on mental load of the healthy volunteers.Results ①Under three different noise basic and at 3 different time marks,there was no statistical differences in serial add and subtract index.The comparison of continuous recognition ability index in 30 min exposure showed that the ability index of J-B group was lower than that of basic noise group (t=2.084,P<0.05),and the ability index of J-B group and J A group was lower than that of basic noise group for 60 min exposure (t=2.222,2.783,P<0.05 or 0.01).The switching attention ability index of J-A and J-B groups was lower than that of basic noise group (t =3.614,2.342,P<0.05 or 0.01) for 30 min exposure,and the switching attention ability index of J-B group lower than that of basic noise group (t=2.823,P<0.01) for 60 min exposure.Such ability of J-A group in 30 min exposure and J-B group in 60 min exposure was respectively was lower than that of at 0 min (t=2.583,2.222,P<0.05).For the comparison of vision complex reaction time,the ability index of J-B group in 60 min exposure was lower than that at 0 min (t=2.369,P<0.05),as to the test at 30 min and 60 min exposure the ability index of J-B was lower than that of basic noise group (t=2.232,2.961,P<0.05 or 0.01).②Under three noise backgrounds and at 3 different time marks,there was no statistical difference in mental demand and performance.For the comparison of physical demand,the ability index of J-B group was higher than that of basic noise group at 30 min and 60 min exposure (t=2.082,2.154,P<0.05).The ability index of J-B group was higher than that of the basic noise group at 0 min and 30 min on the comparison of temporal demand (t=2.793,2.792,P<0.01).For the comparison of effort,the ability index of J-B group was higher than that of basic noise group (t=2.793,P<0.01) and J A group (t=2.792,P<0.01) at 30 min exposure,J-B group's index was higher than that of basic noise group (t=3.572,P<0.01) and J-A group (t=2.901,P<0.01) at 60 min exposure while J-B group's index at 60 min exposure was higher than that at 30 min (t=2.223,P<0.05).The frustration level index of J-B group was higher than that of basic noise group at 0 min and 60 min exposure (t=2.681,2.139,P<0.05).Conclusions The noise levels equivalent to simulated high performance aircraft cockpit environments would reduce the recognition ability of volunteers in a certain extent,and the condition would be worse with the increase of noise duration and intensity.Therefore,it is suggested to take effective methods such as noise reduction in aircraft cockpit and mental intervene to pilots so as to decrease the influences of high performance cockpit noise on the recognition ability of pilots.