Neonatal Pain pp 109-119 | Cite as

Physical Stress Risk Agents in Incubators

  • R. Sisto


Physical risks in incubators mainly relate to noise and electromagnetic radiation exposure. The special vulnerability of neonates, associated with the development of their central nervous system and sensory apparatuses, suggests that particular care should be taken in monitoring their exposure to risk agents. The present chapter provides a brief introduction to these topics.


Noise Exposure Basilar Membrane Otoacoustic Emission Basilar Membrane Displacement Cochlear Tuning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    International Standard ISO 1999 (1990) Acoustics — determination of occupational noise exposure and estimation of noise-induced hearing impairment. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Butler MP et al (1999) Non-auditory effects of noise at work: a critical review of the literature post 1988. Sudbury, HSE BooksGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellieni et al (2003) Use of sound-absorbing panel to reduce noisy incubator reverberating effects. Biol Neonate 84:293–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Probst R, Lonsbury-Martin BL, Martin GK (1991) A review of otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 89:2027–2067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greenwood DD (1990) A cochlear frequency-position function for several species — 29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am 87:2592–2605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moleti A, Sisto R (2003) Objective estimates of cochlear tuning by otoacoustic emission analysis. J Acoust Soc Am 113:423–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shera CA, Guinan JJ, Oxenham AJ (2002) Revised estimates of human cochlear tuning from otoacoustic and behavioral measurements. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:3318–3323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abdala C (2000) Distortion product otoacoustic emission (2f1-f2) amplitude growth in human adults and neonates. J Acoust Soc Am 107:446–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kheifets L, Repacholi M, Saunders R, van Deventer E (2005) The sensitivity of children to electromagnetic fields. Pediatrics 116:e303–e313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wertheimer N, Leeper E (1979) Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. Am J Epidemiol 109:273–284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bellieni CV, Rigato M, Fortunato M et al (2003) Increasing the engine-mattress distance in neonatal incubators: a way to decrease exposure of infants to electromagnetic fields. Ital J Pediatr 29:74–80Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Sisto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Occupational HygieneISPESLRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations