Human factors · 2007
Optimizing emergency awakening to audible smoke alarms: an update.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bruck Dorothy, Ball Michelle
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This review examines research on arousal from sleep in an emergency. It considers whether the current smoke alarm signal is optimal for waking those most at risk of dying in a fire and, if not, how it may be improved.
BACKGROUND: The fire fatality rate during the sleeping period is approximately three times greater than at other times.
METHOD: Four key areas are reviewed: (a) the characteristics of four signals (high-frequency beeping, Temporal 3, voice, and naturalistic sounds); (b) how human characteristics alter arousal to different signals; (c) research comparing the effectiveness of different alarms in different sleeping populations; and (d) acoustical, methodological, and theoretical implications.
RESULTS: Significant risk factors for staying asleep include high levels of background noise, being a heavy sleeper, sleep deprivation, being a child, hypnotics, alcohol intoxication, and hearing impairment. The high-frequency beeping signal was significantly less effective than either a voice alarm or mixed-frequency beeping in waking selected at-risk groups.
CONCLUSION: The alternative signals were more effective in arousing various groups of sleepers than was the high-frequency signal currently used in smoke alarms.
APPLICATION: Replacement of the current smoke alarm signal with one of a lower frequency is likely to wake more people more quickly and save lives.
BACKGROUND: The fire fatality rate during the sleeping period is approximately three times greater than at other times.
METHOD: Four key areas are reviewed: (a) the characteristics of four signals (high-frequency beeping, Temporal 3, voice, and naturalistic sounds); (b) how human characteristics alter arousal to different signals; (c) research comparing the effectiveness of different alarms in different sleeping populations; and (d) acoustical, methodological, and theoretical implications.
RESULTS: Significant risk factors for staying asleep include high levels of background noise, being a heavy sleeper, sleep deprivation, being a child, hypnotics, alcohol intoxication, and hearing impairment. The high-frequency beeping signal was significantly less effective than either a voice alarm or mixed-frequency beeping in waking selected at-risk groups.
CONCLUSION: The alternative signals were more effective in arousing various groups of sleepers than was the high-frequency signal currently used in smoke alarms.
APPLICATION: Replacement of the current smoke alarm signal with one of a lower frequency is likely to wake more people more quickly and save lives.