Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Jul 15;15(7):e0235287. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235287

Incubator-based Sound Attenuation: Active Noise Control In A Simulated Clinical Environment

George Hutchinson 1,*, Lilin Du 1, Kaashif Ahmad 2,3
Editor: Anne Lee Solevåg4
PMCID: PMC7363066  PMID: 32667931

Abstract

Objective

Noise in the neonatal intensive care unit can be detrimental to the health of the hospitalized infant. Means of reducing that noise include staff training, warning lights, and ear coverings, all of which have had limited success. Single family rooms, while an improvement, also expose the hospitalized infant to the same device alarms and mechanical noises found in open bay units.

Methods

We evaluated a non-contact incubator-based active noise control device (Neoasis™, Invictus Medical, San Antonio, Texas) in a simulated neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) setting to determine whether it could effectively reduce the noise exposure of infants within an incubator. In the NICU simulation center, we generated a series of clinically appropriate sound sequences with bedside medical devices such as a patient monitor and fluid infusion devices, hospital air handling systems, and device mechanical sounds. A microphone-equipped infant mannequin was oriented within an incubator. Measurements were made with the microphones with the Neoasis™ deactivated and activated.

Results

The active noise control device decreased sound pressure levels for certain alarm sounds by as much as 14.4 dB (a 5.2-fold reduction in sound pressure) at the alarm tone’s primary frequency. Frequencies below the 2 kHz octave band were more effectively attenuated than frequencies at or above the 2 kHz octave band. Background noise levels below 40 dBA were essentially not impacted by the active noise control device.

Conclusions

The active noise control device further reduces noise inside infant incubators. Device safety and potential health benefits of the quieter environment should be verified in a clinical setting.

Introduction

For preterm infants, the mission of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) care is to support healthy infant development in the extrauterine environment with minimal mortality. Technological advances in neonatal intensive care have improved infant survival over time [18]. The NICU clinical team must provide support of basic functions including temperature and humidity control, nutritional support, and more. A critical component of healthy infant development is limiting the noxious noise to which the patient is exposed [913] while providing appropriate aural stimulation to promote brain and language development [14,15].

Full-term newborn infants are sufficiently developed to cope with environmental stressors such as noise and light [11,16]. However, the central nervous system of a preterm infant is ill-prepared to cope with the extrauterine environment. While stressors such as light can be attenuated by practices such as dimming overhead lights or covering an incubator with a blanket, noise is not as easily addressed.

Noise levels in NICUs have been shown to be consistently louder than guidelines provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) [1721]. These guidelines stipulate that the noise levels that the hospitalized infants are exposed to should not exceed 45 dBA, averaged over one hour and should not exceed a maximal level of 65 dBA averaged over one second [22]. Noise measured both inside and outside an incubator show guidelines are frequently exceeded throughout the day [18].

We sought to develop a solution to the problem of excess noise exposure for the premature infant in an incubator that would not require direct patient contact, adhesives on skin, or ongoing nursing to alleviate. The device developed was evaluated in a realistic NICU environment.

Materials and methods

Study design & setting

Experiments were conducted in the NICU simulation laboratory at The Children’s Hospital of San Antonio (San Antonio, Texas) using bedside critical care equipment. The neonatal critical care equipment was arrayed around an infant incubator (Giraffe OmniBed, GE Healthcare, Waukesha, Wisconsin) in the typical manner. Alarm volumes were set to clinically appropriate levels.

The critical care equipment included a patient monitor (IntelliVue® MX450, Philips Healthcare, Andover, Massachusetts), a syringe pump (Medfusion™ 2001, Smiths Medical, Minneapolis, Minnesota), infusion pump (BD Alaris™ Pump Module, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey), a bubble continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) ventilatory support device (Fisher Paykel, Auckland, New Zealand), and a ventilator (Maquet Servo-I, Getinge Group, Gothenburg, Sweden). These devices and the hospital air handling system were used to generate 10 clinically realistic sound sequences for testing (Table 1) and each sequence was repeated for five trials. The order of the condition (i.e., attenuation device on or off) was randomized for each of the five trials and the mannequin was re-placed in the incubator between each trial.

Table 1. NICU sound sequences used for testing.

Primary Noise Background Noise Combined
Sequence # Noise Source % time active Tones, (decreasing order of amplitude) (Hz) Noise Sources % time active Leq 1 min (dBA)
1 Patient monitor alarm (high priority) 50 960 Bubble CPAP, Hospital air handling system 100 69
2,880
2 Patient monitor alarm (medium priority) 100 1,440 Bubble CPAP, Hospital air handling system 100 72
480
960
1,920
3 Syringe pump end volume alarm (low priority) 8.3 2,761 Bubble CPAP, Hospital air handling system 100 57
4 Syringe pump occlusion alarm (high priority) 8.3 2,745 Bubble CPAP, Hospital air handling system 100 61
5 Patient monitor high alarm & Syringe pump occlusion alarm (high priority) 50 & 8.3 960 Bubble CPAP, Hospital air handling system 100 67
2,880
6 Ventilator high pressure alarm (high priority) 8.3 384 Ventilator mechanical noise, Hospital air handling system 100 56
1,173
783
7 Ventilator respiration rate alarm (medium priority) 8.3 384 Ventilator mechanical noise, Hospital air handling system 100 52
1,173
783
8 Infusion pump occlusion alarm (high priority) 8.3 2,200 Bubble CPAP, Hospital air handling system 100 57
550
1,100
1,650
9 Infusion pump end volume alarm (low priority) 8.3 2,002 Bubble CPAP, Hospital air handling system 100 55
3,003
1,001
10 Male and female voices 33 No prominent tones Bubble CPAP, Hospital air handling system 100 49

A male and a female voice were included in two of the sound sequences. These were recorded on a digital recorder (Zoom H4n, Zoom North America, Hauppauge, New York) via an externally connected microphone (Dayton Audio EMM-6, Dayton Audio, Springboro, Ohio). Recordings were 44.1 kHz 16-bit WAV files. The WAV files were replayed through a powered studio monitor (KRK Rokit 5, Gibson Pro Audio, Chatsworth, California). Recorded voices were used to ensure a consistent signal for all trial and conditions.

Active noise control was provided by a Neoasis™ (Invictus Medical, San Antonio, Texas), active noise control device, which deployed on the infant incubator. The Neoasis™ consists of a control unit and an outside noise sensor, both positioned outside the incubator, and two speakers and a residual noise sensor positioned within the incubator (Fig 1). Active noise control utilizes the phenomenon of incident waves summing. If one incident wave is out of phase with the other, the waves cancel each other. The device measures the sound waves outside the incubator, model what the sound waves will be after passing through the incubator wall, and generates a sound wave out of phase with the modelled wave. A residual noise sensor within the incubator provides data for the system to converge on an optimum solution.

Fig 1. Schematic of the Neoasis™ elements.

Fig 1

The Neoasis™ comprises a residual noise sensor, two speakers positioned inside the incubator, an outside noise sensor affixed to the outside of the incubator, and a control unit to which the other items are connected.

The outside noise sensor was affixed to the incubator on the side closest to the primary noise source, which was the alarm or voice sound in each scenario. The mannequin was placed 5 cm from the residual noise sensor per manufacturer instructions and the speakers mounted to small posts in the D-holes found in the corner of the incubator. The residual noise sensor, the two speakers, and the outside noise sensor were connected to the system’s control unit. No part of the Neoasis™ device contacted the mannequin.

The mannequin was weighted and sized to resemble a 1.3 kg 29-week gestational age preterm infant [23] and was equipped with two general purpose array microphones (Model 40PP, GRAS Sound and Vibration A/S, Holte, Denmark) embedded in its head, each microphone having its sensing element positioned at an opening in the mannequin’s molded ear (Fig 2). The microphones were interfaced to a computer equipped with LabVIEW™ Development System with the Sound and Vibration Toolkit (National Instruments, Austin, Texas) via a CompactDAQ Chassis containing a Sound and Vibration Input Module (National Instruments, Austin, Texas).

Fig 2. Test mannequin showing microphone placement.

Fig 2

Holes were cut in the head of an infant mannequin, permitting the tip of each microphone to emerge from the molded auditory canal. The number written on the cheek of the mannequin indicates the calibration number of that microphone.

Analysis

Noise attenuation was calculated according to the protocol defined by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard ANSI-ASA S12.68, Methods Of Estimating Effective A-Weighted Sound Pressure Levels When Hearing Protectors Are Worn [24]. Two modifications had to be made to the methods described in the standard to adapt it to the test environment. First, the standard directs that users apply the noise attenuation device to themselves; since the neonate will not be self-applying the device, we modified the standard’s protocol, directing that the mannequin be re-deployed in the incubator between each trial sequence. Second, the standard dictates a prescribed set of industrial noises to be used as test signals. Since industrial sounds would not be appropriate to a NICU setting, we substituted a realistic collection of sound sequences consisting of device alarms, machine noises, and hospital environmental noises (Table 1).

The ANSI standard dictates that an average pressure for each of seven octave bands (125 Hz through 8 kHz) is calculated with and without the noise attenuation device over several trials. This calculation is repeated for each ear and for each sound sequence. The difference between the noise level at an ear for an octave band represents the amount of attenuation achieved. A negative value for attenuation represents an amplification.

For sound sequences involving ventilator alarms, the ventilator was positioned by the end of the incubator away from its screen and the Neoasis™ outside noise sensor was attached to the incubator wall near the ventilator’s position according to manufacturer’s instructions. For all other sound sequences, the outside noise sensor was attached to the incubator’s vertical rail by the unit’s screen.

Per the ANSI standard, the average attenuation for all octave bands and all scenarios is calculated along with the standard deviation for the five trials and the 10 sound sequences. Since this average includes all octave bands, even those containing only low-level background noise for which little attenuation is possible or useful, the average attenuation was also calculated for all ear-sequence-octave band combinations where the unattenuated sound pressure level (SPL) was greater than 40dBA.

The Neoasis device includes a voice pass-through feature that allows a voice to be added to the cancelling soundwave to permit directed communication between the infant and the parents or caregivers. The performance of this feature was not evaluated in this study.

Results

The amount of attenuation provided by the Neoasis™ active noise control device varied depending in part on the unattenuated SPL in a given octave band. Instances where the unattenuated SPLs were below 40 dBA, no further attenuation was achieved. For each sound sequence, SPLs for most of the octave bands for both ears were below 40 dBA and most of the sound power was focused on the frequencies of the alarm or voice tones. By way of example, the results for sound sequence 1 are shown (Fig 3). The primary tone of the sound sequence was 960 Hz, falling in the 1 kHz octave band. The attenuation of the single 960 Hz tone was 14.4 dB (a 5.2-fold decrease) while the attenuation of all sound power within the 1 kHz octave band was 11.8 dB for the left ear and 4.3 dB for the right ear. The unattenuated noise present at the left ear was greater than at the right ear, 50.7 dBA and 43.0 dBA respectively. The unattenuated sound levels of the other octave bands range from about 30 dBA to just under 40 dBA. By way of comparison, 40 dBA is comparable to a whisper at a distance of 5 ft [25].

Fig 3. Noise attenuation for noise sequence 1 for both ears and seven octave bands.

Fig 3

The unattenuated SPL is indicaterd by the square mark and the attenuated SPL is indicated by the bar at the top of the column. Measurements for the left and right ears are indicated by the letters “L” and “R,” respectively. The shaded region on the lower portion of the graph indicates the level of the AAP guideline recommendations. The vertical shaded regions indicate each octave band.

In other noise sequences comprising different alarm tones, other phenomenon were noted. In sequences 3, 4, 9, and 10 (Table 1), the SPL of all of the octave bands were below the 40 dBA. In these scenarios, the Neoasis™ did not provide any extra attenuation to reduce the noise below a background level. In sound scenarios 2 and 8 (Table 1), the primary alarm tone was in the 2 kHz octave and the Neoasis™ provided less than 1 dB of attenuation. Of the two ears, the greater SPL was 48.7 dBA for sound scenario 2 and was 47.6 dBA for sound scenario 8.

The average sound attenuation for sound sequences, across all octave bands and both ears is 1.2 dB. The standard deviation across sound spectrums was 3.7 dB and across trials was 0.3 dB. This average includes those octave bands that only contain background noise that was not further attenuated.

Focusing on the 12 measurements where the unattenuated SPL was greater than 40 dBA (Fig 4) the amount of attenuation achieved for the tones in the 500 Hz octave band ranged from -0.2 dB to 9.8 dB, in the 1 kHz band ranged from -0.2 dB to 11.8 dB, and in the 2 kHz band ranged from -0.1 dB to 0.6 dB.

Fig 4. Amount of attenuation for all instances when the original SPL is above 40 dBA.

Fig 4

The seven octave bands are shown on the x-axis and the A-weighted SPL is shown on the Y-axis. The results for the right and left ears are shown, labelled “R” and “L.” The square represents the unattenuated sound and the top of the gray bar represents the attenuation achieved by the Neoasis™ system. The test sequence used comprised a high priority patient monitor alarm, a bubble CPAP device operating, and hospital environmental noise.

Discussion

Our study demonstrates that an active noise control device provides attenuation within an infant incubator in a real-world simulation setting. We found substantial attenuation of as much as 14.4 dB for a commonly encountered alarm sound, equivalent to a 5.2-fold reduction in sound pressure. Sounds that were minimally transmitted through the walls of the incubator, having SPLs at and below 40 dBA, were not further attenuated. A mechanism to reduce the unnecessary noise exposure of NICU infants could have widespread application. Device alarms are consistently found to be a source of excessive noise in NICUs, [20,21,26]. Patient monitor alarms are an especially frequent contributor to the noise in NICUs, with an average of 177 alarms/patient/day [27].

Noise levels in the NICU can be quite loud [1721] and shift changes have been observed to be the loudest periods [18]. Average noise levels in the over a rolling one hour period ranged from a low of 52 dBA to a high of 72 dBA in the NICU and from a low of 55 dBA to a high of 64 dBA within an unoccupied incubator [18]. Peak SPL measures in NICUs have been reported over 100 dBA [28,29] and within incubator as high as 88 dBA [20,21].

Attempts to improve the acoustic environment of the NICU have largely been unsuccessful, whether through education efforts [26] or sound-activated warning lights [30]. Single family rooms are being increasingly adopted in NICU design and have shown improvements in many outcomes for preterm infants [31]. The implementation of single family rooms has resulted in drops in average noise levels but the improvements have not been significant [32] or still remain well above the guidelines [29,32]. Given that the same monitors, ventilatory support devices and other equipment is present in the single family rooms as well as the open ward units, the continued high noise levels are not unexpected [29].

The active noise control device’s having little effect on noise levels at or below 40 dBA are unlikely to have clinical relevance to the NICU patient as published guidelines focus on noise levels above 45 dBA [22,33,34]. We found that tones above 2 kHz were not addressed by the active noise control device. Active noise control systems can operate optimally over a frequency range with the maximum frequency is 30 times the minimum frequency, with decreased performance at the ends of the range [35]. With a low-end of the system set to 100 Hz, poorer performance for signals in the 2 kHz octave like those in sequences 2 and 8 is not unexpected. However, higher frequencies penetrate structures less readily than do lower frequencies [36] causing less to penetrate the incubator shell. These higher frequencies are less prevalent within the NICU than frequencies in the 500 Hz band and below [19]. We found the amplitude of the sound detected at the right ear of the mannequin was consistently lower than that found at the left ear. This likely indicates a heterogeneity of SPLs within the incubator enclosure of the incubator due to nulls of standing sound waves.

The dB scale of the measurement of SPL is logarithmic and represents the ratio between two SPLs. For example, an increase of 6 dB represents a doubling of the SPL while a 20 dB change represents a 100-fold increase. When a value is used to describe a sound or environment, it represents the ratio of the sound source’s SPL and 0 dB, the SPL of the threshold of hearing. For example, an environmental SPL of 100 dB represents a sound whose SPL is 100,000 times more than that of the threshold of hearing.

Humans’ sensitivity to sound pressure is frequency dependent, with the most sensitive range being between 1 kHz and 6 kHz and sensitivity being about 20 dB lower at 100 Hz. When dealing with situations involving human hearing, SPLs are generally weighted according to empirically-derived transfer function, referred to as A-weighting and expressed as dBA [25].

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards have been established to limit noise exposure to occupational noises to prevent worker injury [25] (see Fig 5 for examples of noises on a dBA scale). For adults, the criterion for short-term noise permissible exposure level is 90 dBA time weighted average for 15 minutes. We are not aware of studies relating time-weighted noise exposure limits for injury in infants.

Fig 5. Typical sound levels on the dBA scale.

Fig 5

Figure adapted from OSHA Technical Manual [25].

Reducing noise levels for the preterm infant may have important health benefits. Studies of ear covers and ear plugs have shown that noise reduction can improve medical outcomes for preterm infants [13,3740]. There is a concern that the adhesives required to keep ear covers on the skin of the infant are responsible for breakdown of the fragile skin of the patient [41] and that they decrease all auditory input including the directed communication needed for verbal development [12]. Earplugs may represent a choking hazard [13]. Improvements in weight gain due to a noise-attenuated environment have been demonstrated in randomized prospective studies of low birth weight hospitalized infants [13,39]. Adequate growth is a prerequisite of a successful discharge from the NICU. Infants experiencing environmental stress have elevated heart and respiration rates resulting in increased oxygen consumption and caloric requirements [42].

Several limitations exist with this study. We evaluated the performance of the Neoasis™ device with a limited set of bedside devices and these devices were oriented in only one set of positions around the incubator. Only one type of incubator was used in the testing. Other bedside devices will have different alarm tones consisting of different frequency components, resulting in different levels of attenuation. It is possible that the relative position of the bedside devices, the Neoasis™ outside noise sensor, and the walls of the incubator could have an effect on the level of attenuation achieved. We also did not evaluate the performance of the voice pass-through feature of the device.

Conclusions

Within an infant incubator in a simulated clinical environment, the Neoasis™ active noise control device was able to attenuate the device alarm sounds tested to the level of the AAP recommendations for tones in the 1 kHz octave band and below. This device may have a positive effect on noise management for the incubated infant. A clinical study is needed to verify whether the Neoasis™ will replicate the sleep and other health benefits of a reduced noise environment found in other studies.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Drs Reese Clark and Veeral Tolia for their critical review of the manuscript. We also thank Dr Gayle Dasher and James McElroy of the simulation center at the Children’s Hospital of San Antonio for their assistance in conducting the experiments in their facility and Dr Preston Wilson, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin for guidance in acoustics and attenuation calculations.

Data Availability

All data files are available fromhttps://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/SE3BJW.

Funding Statement

This work was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health, grant 1R43DC018464 (GH). Invictus Medical (invictusmed.com) provided the equipment used in this study (GH, LD). Invictus Medical provided support in the form of salaries for authors GH and LD. GH is the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Scientific Officer of this company. Invictus Medical did not have any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. Beyond what’s noted in the Author Contributions section, neither the board of directors nor the investors of the funder has had any influence on any aspect of this research.

References

  • 1.Fanaroff AA, Hack M, Walsh MC. The NICHD neonatal research network: changes in practice and outcomes during the first 15 years. Semin Perinatol. 2003. August;27(4):281–7. 10.1016/s0146-0005(03)00055-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hack M, Fanaroff AA. Outcomes of children of extremely low birthweight and gestational age in the 1990s. Semin Neonatol. 2000. May;5(2):89–106. 10.1053/siny.1999.0001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Glass HC, Costarino AT, Stayer SA, Brett CM, Cladis F, Davis PJ. Outcomes for extremely premature infants. Anesth Analg. 2015. June;120(6):1337–51. 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hintz SR, Poole WK, Wright LL, Fanaroff AA, Kendrick DE, Laptook AR, et al. Changes in mortality and morbidities among infants born at less than 25 weeks during the post-surfactant era. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005;90(2):128–33. 10.1136/adc.2003.046268 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Blaymore-Bier J, Pezzullo J, Kim E, Oh W, Garcia-Coll C, Vohr BR. Outcome of extremely low-birth-weight infants: 1980–1990. Acta Paediatr. 1994. December;83(12):1244–8. 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1994.tb13005.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Younge N, Goldstein RF, Bann CM, Hintz SR, Patel RM, Smith PB, et al. Survival and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes among Periviable Infants. N Engl J Med. 2017. February 16;376(7):617–28. 10.1056/NEJMoa1605566 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ehret DEY, Edwards EM, Greenberg LT, Bernstein IM, Buzas JS, Soll RF, et al. Association of Antenatal Steroid Exposure With Survival Among Infants Receiving Postnatal Life Support at 22 to 25 Weeks’ Gestation. JAMA Netw open. 2018;1(6):e183235 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3235 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Watkins PL, Dagle JM, Bell EF, Colaizy TT. Outcomes at 18 to 22 Months of Corrected Age for Infants Born at 22 to 25 Weeks of Gestation in a Center Practicing Active Management. J Pediatr. 2020. February;217:52–58.e1. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.08.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Graven SN. Sound and the developing infant in the NICU: conclusions and recommendations for care. J Perinatol. 2000. December;20(8 Pt 2):S88–93. 10.1038/sj.jp.7200444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Williams AL, Sanderson M, Lai D, Selwyn BJ, Lasky RE. Intensive care noise and mean arterial blood pressure in extremely low-birth-weight neonates. Am J Perinatol. 2009. May;26(5):323–9. 10.1055/s-0028-1104741 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lai TT, Bearer CF. Iatrogenic environmental hazards in the neonatal intensive care unit. Clin Perinatol. 2008. March;35(1):163–81, ix. 10.1016/j.clp.2007.11.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Almadhoob A, Ohlsson A. Sound reduction management in the neonatal intensive care unit for preterm or very low birth weight infants. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2015. January;(1):CD010333 10.1002/14651858.CD010333.pub2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Abou Turk C, Williams AL, Lasky RE. A randomized clinical trial evaluating silicone earplugs for very low birth weight newborns in intensive care. J Perinatol. 2009. May;29(5):358–63. 10.1038/jp.2008.236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Caskey M, Stephens B, Tucker R, Vohr B. Importance of Parent Talk on the Development of Preterm Infant Vocalizations. Pediatrics. 2011;128(5):910–6. 10.1542/peds.2011-0609 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Caskey M, Stephens B, Tucker R, Vohr B. Adult talk in the NICU with preterm infants and developmental outcomes. Pediatrics. 2014;133(3):e578–84. 10.1542/peds.2013-0104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wachman EM, Lahav A. The effects of noise on preterm infants in the NICU. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2011;96(4):F305–9. 10.1136/adc.2009.182014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Darcy AE, Hancock LE, Ware EJ. A descriptive study of noise in the neonatal intensive care unit: ambient levels and perceptions of contributing factors. Adv Neonatal Care. 2008;8(5 Suppl):S16–26. 10.1097/01.ANC.0000337268.85717.7c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fortes-Garrido JC, Velez-Pereira AM, Gázquez M, Hidalgo-Hidalgo M, Bolívar JP. The characterization of noise levels in a neonatal intensive care unit and the implications for noise management. J Environ Heal Sci Eng. 2014;12(104). [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kellam B, Bhatia J. Sound Spectral Analysis in the Intensive Care Nursery: Measuring High-Frequency Sound. J Pediatr Nurs Nurs Care Child Fam. 2008. March 23;23(4):317–23. 10.1016/j.pedn.2007.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Neille J, George K, Khoza-Shangase K. A study investigating sound sources and noise levels in neonatal intensive care units. SAJCH South African J Child Heal. 2014;8(1):6–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Parra J, de Suremain A, Berne Audeoud F, Ego A, Debillon T. Sound levels in a neonatal intensive care unit significantly exceeded recommendations, especially inside incubators. Acta Paediatr. 2017. June 6;106(6). 10.1111/apa.13906 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Committee on Environmental Health. Noise: A Hazard for the Fetus and Newborn. Pediatrics. 1997;100(4):724–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Fenton TR. A new growth chart for preterm babies: Babson and Benda’s chart updated with recent data and a new format. BMC Pediatr. 2003;3(1):13 10.1186/1471-2431-3-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.ANSI-ASA S12.68. Methods of estimating effective A-weighted sound pressure levels when hearing protectors are worn. Vol. 2007. 2012.
  • 25.Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OHSA Technical Manual [Internet]. 2013.
  • 26.Milette I. Decreasing noise level in our NICU: The impact of a noise awareness educational program. Adv Neonatal Care. 2010;10(6):343–51. 10.1097/ANC.0b013e3181fc8108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Li T, Matsushima M, Timpson W, Young S, Miedema D, Gupta M, et al. Epidemiology of patient monitoring alarms in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Perinatol. 2018. August 8;38(8):1030–8. 10.1038/s41372-018-0095-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pinheiro EM, Guinsburg R, Nabuco MA de A, Kakehashi TY. Noise at the neonatal intensive care unit and inside the incubator. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2011. January;19(5):1214–21. 10.1590/s0104-11692011000500020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Liu WF. Comparing sound measurements in the single-family room with open-unit design neonatal intensive care unit: The impact of equipment noise. J Perinatol. 2012;32(5):368–73. 10.1038/jp.2011.103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chang Y-J, Pan Y-J, Lin Y-J, Chang Y-Z, Lin C-H. A noise-sensor light alarm reduces noise in the newborn intensive care unit. Am J Perinatol. 2006. July;23(5):265–71. 10.1055/s-2006-941455 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lester BM, Hawes K, Abar B, Sullivan M, Miller R, Bigsby R, et al. Single-family room care and neurobehavioral and medical outcomes in preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2014. October;134(4):754–60. 10.1542/peds.2013-4252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pineda R, Durant P, Mathur A, Inder T, Wallendorf M, Schlaggar BL. Auditory Exposure in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Room Type and Other Predictors. J Pediatr. 2017;183:56–66. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.12.072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.White RD, Smith JA, Shepley MM. Recommended standards for newborn ICU design, eighth edition. J Perinatol. 2013. April;33:S2–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.White RD. Recommended standards for the newborn ICU. J Perinatol. 2007;27 Suppl 2:S4–19. 10.1038/sj.jp.7211837 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hansen C. Understanding Active Noise Cancellation. 1st ed New York: Taylor & Francis; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Blackstock D. Fundamentals Of Physical Acoustics. New York: Wiley; 2000. 163–170 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Khalesi N, Khosravi N, Ranjbar A, Godarzi Z, Karimi A. The effectiveness of earmuffs on the physiologic and behavioral stability in preterm infants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017. July;98:43–7. 10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.04.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Duran R, Ciftdemir NA, Ozbek UV, Berberoğlu U, Durankuş F, Süt N, et al. The effects of noise reduction by earmuffs on the physiologic and behavioral responses in very low birth weight preterm infants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012. October;76(10):1490–3. 10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Abdeyazdan Z, Ghasemi S, Marofi M, Berjis N. Motor responses and weight gaining in neonates through use of two methods of earmuff and receiving silence in NICU. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:864780 10.1155/2014/864780 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Li W-G, Jiang H-B, Gan T, Zhou W-X, Chen M. Effect of noise on the auditory system and the intelligence development of premature infants treated in the neonatal intensive care unit. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi. 2009. December;11(12):976–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zahr LK, Balian S. Responses of premature infants to routine nursing interventions and noise in the NICU. Nurs Res. 1995;44(3):179–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bremmer P, Byers JF, Kiehl E. Noise and the premature infant: physiological effects and practice implications. J Obstet Gynecol neonatal Nurs. 2003. January;32(4):447–54. 10.1177/0884217503255009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Anne Lee Solevåg

15 May 2020

PONE-D-20-05746

Incubator-based Sound Attenuation: Active Noise Control In A Simulated Clinical Environment

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Hutchinson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

  • Please make changes according to the reviewer's comments and suggestions

  • Unfortunately, I was only able to obtain one peer review report. I am sorry for the tardiness in evaluating the manuscript

  •  

    "All data files are available from " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">invictusmed.com/nicu_sim_data" - the link does not seem to work

  •  

    Please make sure that the abbreviation NICU is being explained the first time it is mentioned

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 29 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Anne Lee Solevåg, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1.    Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for providing the following Funding Statement: 

"This work was supported in part by NIH grant 1R43DC018464 (GH). Invictus Medical (invictusmed.com) provided the equipment used in this study (GH, LD). Some authors (GH, LD) are employees of Invictus Medical and these authors played a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript. The remaining author (KA) received no specific funding for this work and played a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript."

We note that one or more of the authors is affiliated with the funding organization, indicating the funder may have had some role in the design, data collection, analysis or preparation of your manuscript for publication; in other words, the funder played an indirect role through the participation of the co-authors.

If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please make any necessary amendments directly within this section of the online submission form.  Please also update your Funding Statement to include the following statement: “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If the funding organization did have an additional role, please state and explain that role within your Funding Statement.

Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. Please include a copy of Table 2 which you refer to in your text on page 4.

4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript.

The manuscript aims to examine a device which can reduce noise levels in the NICU.

While noise is an important aspect within the NICU, the effect of Noise on long-term outcomes need further studies.

In the womb, a fetus is continuously exposed to 85 dB, which is generated by the mother’s blood flow. It is worth noting that this high noise level, does not affect the development of a baby. Many guidelines recommend noise levels be 50dB, but do not consider this information.

I agree that high pitch sudden noises could have an impact of the developing brain of preterm infants, but this would require further studies.

Some data into single rooms would suggest that the reduced noise level might not support brain development either.

CPAP devices, which generate consistent white background noise, might be an advantage for the infant as it potentially masks sudden high pitch noises like alarms.

I do have a few questions/comments:

What was the Duty cycle? Could this be explained in more detail.

What statistical tests did you used?

How does the active noise canceling device work? More details would give the reader a clearer understanding about the device and how it works.

Is this device approved by health authorities like the FDA?

If you use CPAP as white background noise, would you also register the same level of dB for alarms?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Georg Schmolzer

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 15;15(7):e0235287. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235287.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 Jun 2020

May 23, 2020

PLoS One

Anne Lee Solevåg, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

Dear Dr. Solevåg,

We are happy to learn that PLOS ONE feels that our manuscript has merit and are appreciative of the opportunity to improve it in response to referee comments. We have responded to feedback point by point below:

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

1. All data files are available from invictusmed.com/nicu_sim_data" - the link does not seem to work

- We have repaired the hyperlink and the data files are available. We apologize for the oversight.

2. Please make sure that the abbreviation NICU is being explained the first time it is mentioned

- Thank you, we have addressed this issue.

JOURNAL REQUIREMENTS

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming

- Thank you, we have ensured the manuscript meets style requirements.

2. We note that one or more of the authors is affiliated with the funding organization, indicating the funder may have had some role in the design, data collection, analysis or preparation of your manuscript for publication; in other words, the funder played an indirect role through the participation of the co-authors.

If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please make any necessary amendments directly within this section of the online submission form. Please also update your Funding Statement to include the following statement: “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

- We have included the requested statement.

The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [GH, LD], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

One of the authors, Dr George Hutchinson is the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Scientific Officer of the funder. Beyond what’s noted in the Author Contributions section, neither the board of directors nor the investors of the funder has had any influence on any aspect of this research.

3. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

- We have included the following Competing Interest Statement to declare the commercial affiliations of GH and LD.

- KA declares that no competing interests exist.

GH has read the journal's policy and has the following competing interests:

* is an employee, board member, and shareholder of the company manufacturing the equipment used in this study

* is a named inventor of patent applications assigned to the company manufacturing the equipment used in this study.

LD has read the journal's policy and has the following competing interests:

* is an employee and shareholder of the company manufacturing the equipment used in this study

* is a named inventor of patent applications assigned to the company manufacturing the equipment used in this study.

This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

4. Please include a copy of Table 2 which you refer to in your text on page 4.

- We apologize for the confusion on this matter. The article has only one table. In the conversion from Word to PDF, the second reference to Table 1 was changed to “Table 2.” We will ensure the conversion is correct.

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

- Please see the response to question 4. The manuscript only contains one table.

REVIEWER #1:

1. What was the Duty cycle? Could this be explained in more detail.

- Thank you for this important question. We have replaced “Duty Cycle” with “% time active” in Table 1. Duty cycle is an engineering description of the relative period that a signal is present within a given period of time. A duty cycle of 100% indicates that a signal is present throughout a time period while a duty cycle of 50% indicates that the signal is present half of the time. We believe that the new descriptor, “% time active” is more clear. Thank you for pointing out the use of jargon.

2. What statistical tests did you used?

- Thank you for this question. Our manuscript is largely descriptive and we did not perform statistical analysis.

3. How does the active noise canceling device work? More details would give the reader a clearer understanding about the device and how it works.

- We are appreciative of the opportunity to provide further clarity on how this device works. We have added the following text near line 82.

“Utilizing the phenomenon of incident waves summing, active noise control was accomplished by generating sound waves within the incubator that are out of phase with a model of sound waves detected by the outside noise sensor as they are when they have passed through the walls of the incubator. The residual noise remaining when the environmental and the cancelling sound wave meet was detected by the residual noise sensor, which is used to continually refine the cancelling sound wave produced to maximize the cancellation.”

4. Is this device approved by health authorities like the FDA?

- This device is subject to regulatory clearance by the FDA before clinical use may be permitted. However, as this study is preclinical (simulation), FDA clearance was not required.

5. If you use CPAP as white background noise, would you also register the same level of dB for alarms?

- We appreciate the chance to clarify this matter regarding combining a primary noise with a background noise. Measurements of the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) of a primary noise and a background noise consider the contribution of all sounds during the measurement period. Background noise will increase the Leq over the measured time period.

Note that a background noise can affect the “detectability” of a primary tone. However, this is not reflected in the equivalent sound level, Leq. This would affect the Tone-to-noise-ratio and the Prominence ratio. However, these are not the subject of this study.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response Letter.docx

Decision Letter 1

Anne Lee Solevåg

12 Jun 2020

Incubator-based Sound Attenuation: Active Noise Control In A Simulated Clinical Environment

PONE-D-20-05746R1

Dear Dr. George Hutchinson,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Anne Lee Solevåg, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Georg Schmolzer

Acceptance letter

Anne Lee Solevåg

22 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-05746R1

Incubator-based Sound Attenuation: Active Noise Control In A Simulated Clinical Environment

Dear Dr. Hutchinson:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Anne Lee Solevåg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response Letter.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data files are available fromhttps://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/SE3BJW.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES