模拟高性能战斗机座舱噪声对健康志愿者认知能力的影响

Effects of noise in simulated high performance aircraft cockpit on healthy volunteers' 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.

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.