Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 May;61(5):2083-2093.
doi: 10.1002/jmri.29665. Epub 2024 Dec 17.

A Review of MRI Acoustic Noise Outputs and Hearing Protection Device Performance

Affiliations
Review

A Review of MRI Acoustic Noise Outputs and Hearing Protection Device Performance

Michael Steckner. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2025 May.

Abstract

The acoustic noise outputs of MR equipment typically require a hearing protection device (HPD) to minimize the likelihood of patient hearing loss. Several different ways to quantify HPD performance have been developed and adopted over many years in different countries across the world (eg, NRR, SNR, SLC80). These HPD evaluations are done in controlled laboratory conditions, following different standardized methodologies, producing different performance ratings for the same HPD, and consequently of a variable relationship with achieved real-world usage performance assessments. Conversely, the MR manufacturers follow one standard (NEMA MS-4) which strives to produce a worst-case peak and average acoustic noise output measurement. Measuring the acoustic output of MR equipment is a complex undertaking in the confined patient space, especially when considering the variability of what is in the patient imaging space. Given both the MR equipment acoustic output measurements and the HPD performance rating, it is theoretically possible to estimate the worst-case patient exposure level, subject to the uncertainty of how successfully the protection was applied and population variability. An assessment, shown here, suggests that the worst-case outputs from the loudest MR equipment requires the best passive HPD performance presently available in order to meet patient protection guidelines, but only when the HPD is properly deployed. However, when considering government agency derating recommendations that estimate protection achieved during practical application, the various metrics are not consistent in confirming that the best HPD provide sufficient protection. This paper reviews the challenges of determining and providing sufficient hearing protection. The correct deployment of HPD, and its verification, is thus a critical factor in ensuring adequate patient protection and the main concern of this review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

Keywords: MRI acoustic noise; hearing loss; hearing protection; patient safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Reynard P, Thai‐Van H. Drug‐induced hearing loss: Listening to the latest advances. Therapies 2024;79(2):283‐295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.therap.2023.10.011.
    1. Berger EH, Neitzel R, Kladden CA. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database, E‐A‐R 88‐34/HP. 2016. https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/888553O/noise‐navigator‐sound‐level‐...
    1. IEC 60601‐2‐33 Medical electrical equipment—Part 2‐33: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. 2022.
    1. NEMA MS‐4 Acoustic noise measurement procedure for magnetic resonance equipment. 2024.
    1. IEC 60601‐1 Medical electrical equipment—Part 1: General requirements for basic safety and essential performance. 2020.

MeSH terms