A field investigation of hearing protection and hearing enhancement in one device: for soldiers whose ears and lives depend upon it

Operational hearing protection and maintenance of audibility of signals and speech are considered force multipliers in military operations, increasing Soldier survivability and lethality. The in-field research described in this paper was conducted to examine operational performance effects of three...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Noise & health 2009-01, Vol.11 (42), p.69-90
Hauptverfasser: Casali, John G, Ahroon, William A, Lancaster, Jeff A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 90
container_issue 42
container_start_page 69
container_title Noise & health
container_volume 11
creator Casali, John G
Ahroon, William A
Lancaster, Jeff A
description Operational hearing protection and maintenance of audibility of signals and speech are considered force multipliers in military operations, increasing Soldier survivability and lethality. The in-field research described in this paper was conducted to examine operational performance effects of three different hearing enhancement protection systems (HEPS) that are intended to provide both protection and audibility. The experiment utilized operationally-defined measures in full-scale, simulated combat scenarios with Army ROTC Cadet Soldiers as subjects. The Soldiers' operational performance was evaluated in two missions: reconnaissance and raid (attack on enemy camp). Both missions had substantial hearing requirements, including communications, signal detection/recognition, and distance judgments. Operational performance was measured by objective metrics of Squad performance, including the distances required to detect an enemy insurgent camp under each HEPS, and by subjective metrics, such as the Army's dimensions of combat-related mission success as evaluated by Army Officers who served as training leaders/observers. Other subjective ratings were obtained after each training exercise from both the Officers and the Soldiers, including detailed impressions about each HEPS after extended use. Two of the three HEPS were electronic sound transmission devices (comprising an ambient sound pass-through filtering and amplification circuit): a Peltor Comtac II circumaural headset (NRR=21; 16 dB maximum gain); and a Communications Enhancement Protection System (CEPS) (NRR=29; 36 dB maximum gain). One passive, level-dependent HEPS was used, the yellow end of the Combat Arms Earplug, which provides amplitude-sensitive attenuation that sharply increases when the ambient sound is above about 110 dB (e.g., due to a gunshot), but which provides an NRR of 0 and very little attenuation below 1000 Hz in lower ambient noise levels. In the military mission entailing location of and attack on an enemy camp, the CEPS device resulted in the longest (earliest) average auditory detection distance of the camp (400 feet), followed by the Peltor (233 feet) and then the Combat Arms Earplug (150 feet), in comparison to detection by the unprotected, normal ear at about 220 feet. Commanding officers' ratings of mission performance and overall success slightly favored the electronic HEPS, but these ratings were dependent upon the particular mission undertaken. Ergonomics and usability issues
doi_str_mv 10.4103/1463-1741.48564
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20627636</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A195128999</galeid><sourcerecordid>A195128999</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c493t-ef94007cd1b1f7dfae90da2e09dfe9433affd8209b952230d4628625d8470f4e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptks9vFCEUx4nR2Fo9ezMkJr3Nll_DDN42ja0mTbzombDw2KWZgRVm2nj2H5fZrtYawwHe4_N98H4g9JaSlaCEX1AheUM7QVeib6V4hk6pUn0jCCfP6_n37Ql6VcotIURQxl6iE6qYbFkrT9HPNfYBBodDvIMyha2ZQoo4ebwDk0Pc4n1OE9iD10T3xw1xZ6KFEeJUtThFwA7ugoUP2KeMSxpcgFzw_S4VwFVUDvIh1GcquYdqzPsaNEyv0QtvhgJvjvsZ-nb18evlp-bmy_Xny_VNY4XiUwNeCUI66-iG-s55A4o4w4Ao50EJzo33rmdEbVTLGCdOSNZL1rpedMQL4Gfo_CFuTen7XLPVYygWhsFESHPRjEjWSS4r-P4f8DbNOda_adpK2nLa9fyR2poBdIg-TdnYJaReU9VS1iulKrX6D1WXgzHYWjYfqv-J4PwvQS33MO1qNeelA-UpePEA2pxKyeD1PofR5B-aEr1Mh176r5f-68N0VMW7Y17zZgT3yB_Hgf8Cb1-zNA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1561531783</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A field investigation of hearing protection and hearing enhancement in one device: for soldiers whose ears and lives depend upon it</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Medknow Open Access Medical Journals</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Casali, John G ; Ahroon, William A ; Lancaster, Jeff A</creator><creatorcontrib>Casali, John G ; Ahroon, William A ; Lancaster, Jeff A</creatorcontrib><description>Operational hearing protection and maintenance of audibility of signals and speech are considered force multipliers in military operations, increasing Soldier survivability and lethality. The in-field research described in this paper was conducted to examine operational performance effects of three different hearing enhancement protection systems (HEPS) that are intended to provide both protection and audibility. The experiment utilized operationally-defined measures in full-scale, simulated combat scenarios with Army ROTC Cadet Soldiers as subjects. The Soldiers' operational performance was evaluated in two missions: reconnaissance and raid (attack on enemy camp). Both missions had substantial hearing requirements, including communications, signal detection/recognition, and distance judgments. Operational performance was measured by objective metrics of Squad performance, including the distances required to detect an enemy insurgent camp under each HEPS, and by subjective metrics, such as the Army's dimensions of combat-related mission success as evaluated by Army Officers who served as training leaders/observers. Other subjective ratings were obtained after each training exercise from both the Officers and the Soldiers, including detailed impressions about each HEPS after extended use. Two of the three HEPS were electronic sound transmission devices (comprising an ambient sound pass-through filtering and amplification circuit): a Peltor Comtac II circumaural headset (NRR=21; 16 dB maximum gain); and a Communications Enhancement Protection System (CEPS) (NRR=29; 36 dB maximum gain). One passive, level-dependent HEPS was used, the yellow end of the Combat Arms Earplug, which provides amplitude-sensitive attenuation that sharply increases when the ambient sound is above about 110 dB (e.g., due to a gunshot), but which provides an NRR of 0 and very little attenuation below 1000 Hz in lower ambient noise levels. In the military mission entailing location of and attack on an enemy camp, the CEPS device resulted in the longest (earliest) average auditory detection distance of the camp (400 feet), followed by the Peltor (233 feet) and then the Combat Arms Earplug (150 feet), in comparison to detection by the unprotected, normal ear at about 220 feet. Commanding officers' ratings of mission performance and overall success slightly favored the electronic HEPS, but these ratings were dependent upon the particular mission undertaken. Ergonomics and usability issues abounded with the electronic HEPS, and the Soldiers' subjective ratings showed variability across all three devices, with device preference depending upon the particular dimension being rated (e.g., comfort vs. hearing ability). Clearly, the results of this in-field experiment demonstrate that more development is needed to achieve the levels of hearing performance and user acceptance from the HEPS that is desirable and needed for combat conditions. In this vein, it is important to note that HEPS designs are continually evolving, and certain upgrades to the three devices evaluated in the late 2006 timeframe of this study have occurred and further evaluations are thus warranted.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1463-1741</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1998-4030</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4103/1463-1741.48564</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19265256</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>India: Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</publisher><subject>Analysis of Variance ; Armed forces ; Aviation ; Biomedical Research ; Communication ; Data Collection ; Data Interpretation, Statistical ; Ear Protective Devices ; Ears &amp; hearing ; Ergonomics ; Health aspects ; Hearing ; Hearing - physiology ; Hearing Aids ; Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced - prevention &amp; control ; Hearing protection ; Humans ; Investigations ; Military ; Military Personnel ; Noise ; Noise levels ; Personal protective equipment ; Protective equipment ; Soldiers ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Training ; United States ; Warfare</subject><ispartof>Noise &amp; health, 2009-01, Vol.11 (42), p.69-90</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2009 Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright Medknow Publications &amp; Media Pvt Ltd Jan 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c493t-ef94007cd1b1f7dfae90da2e09dfe9433affd8209b952230d4628625d8470f4e3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,4010,27900,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19265256$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Casali, John G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ahroon, William A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lancaster, Jeff A</creatorcontrib><title>A field investigation of hearing protection and hearing enhancement in one device: for soldiers whose ears and lives depend upon it</title><title>Noise &amp; health</title><addtitle>Noise Health</addtitle><description>Operational hearing protection and maintenance of audibility of signals and speech are considered force multipliers in military operations, increasing Soldier survivability and lethality. The in-field research described in this paper was conducted to examine operational performance effects of three different hearing enhancement protection systems (HEPS) that are intended to provide both protection and audibility. The experiment utilized operationally-defined measures in full-scale, simulated combat scenarios with Army ROTC Cadet Soldiers as subjects. The Soldiers' operational performance was evaluated in two missions: reconnaissance and raid (attack on enemy camp). Both missions had substantial hearing requirements, including communications, signal detection/recognition, and distance judgments. Operational performance was measured by objective metrics of Squad performance, including the distances required to detect an enemy insurgent camp under each HEPS, and by subjective metrics, such as the Army's dimensions of combat-related mission success as evaluated by Army Officers who served as training leaders/observers. Other subjective ratings were obtained after each training exercise from both the Officers and the Soldiers, including detailed impressions about each HEPS after extended use. Two of the three HEPS were electronic sound transmission devices (comprising an ambient sound pass-through filtering and amplification circuit): a Peltor Comtac II circumaural headset (NRR=21; 16 dB maximum gain); and a Communications Enhancement Protection System (CEPS) (NRR=29; 36 dB maximum gain). One passive, level-dependent HEPS was used, the yellow end of the Combat Arms Earplug, which provides amplitude-sensitive attenuation that sharply increases when the ambient sound is above about 110 dB (e.g., due to a gunshot), but which provides an NRR of 0 and very little attenuation below 1000 Hz in lower ambient noise levels. In the military mission entailing location of and attack on an enemy camp, the CEPS device resulted in the longest (earliest) average auditory detection distance of the camp (400 feet), followed by the Peltor (233 feet) and then the Combat Arms Earplug (150 feet), in comparison to detection by the unprotected, normal ear at about 220 feet. Commanding officers' ratings of mission performance and overall success slightly favored the electronic HEPS, but these ratings were dependent upon the particular mission undertaken. Ergonomics and usability issues abounded with the electronic HEPS, and the Soldiers' subjective ratings showed variability across all three devices, with device preference depending upon the particular dimension being rated (e.g., comfort vs. hearing ability). Clearly, the results of this in-field experiment demonstrate that more development is needed to achieve the levels of hearing performance and user acceptance from the HEPS that is desirable and needed for combat conditions. In this vein, it is important to note that HEPS designs are continually evolving, and certain upgrades to the three devices evaluated in the late 2006 timeframe of this study have occurred and further evaluations are thus warranted.</description><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Armed forces</subject><subject>Aviation</subject><subject>Biomedical Research</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Data Collection</subject><subject>Data Interpretation, Statistical</subject><subject>Ear Protective Devices</subject><subject>Ears &amp; hearing</subject><subject>Ergonomics</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Hearing</subject><subject>Hearing - physiology</subject><subject>Hearing Aids</subject><subject>Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Hearing protection</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigations</subject><subject>Military</subject><subject>Military Personnel</subject><subject>Noise</subject><subject>Noise levels</subject><subject>Personal protective equipment</subject><subject>Protective equipment</subject><subject>Soldiers</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Training</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Warfare</subject><issn>1463-1741</issn><issn>1998-4030</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNptks9vFCEUx4nR2Fo9ezMkJr3Nll_DDN42ja0mTbzombDw2KWZgRVm2nj2H5fZrtYawwHe4_N98H4g9JaSlaCEX1AheUM7QVeib6V4hk6pUn0jCCfP6_n37Ql6VcotIURQxl6iE6qYbFkrT9HPNfYBBodDvIMyha2ZQoo4ebwDk0Pc4n1OE9iD10T3xw1xZ6KFEeJUtThFwA7ugoUP2KeMSxpcgFzw_S4VwFVUDvIh1GcquYdqzPsaNEyv0QtvhgJvjvsZ-nb18evlp-bmy_Xny_VNY4XiUwNeCUI66-iG-s55A4o4w4Ao50EJzo33rmdEbVTLGCdOSNZL1rpedMQL4Gfo_CFuTen7XLPVYygWhsFESHPRjEjWSS4r-P4f8DbNOda_adpK2nLa9fyR2poBdIg-TdnYJaReU9VS1iulKrX6D1WXgzHYWjYfqv-J4PwvQS33MO1qNeelA-UpePEA2pxKyeD1PofR5B-aEr1Mh176r5f-68N0VMW7Y17zZgT3yB_Hgf8Cb1-zNA</recordid><startdate>200901</startdate><enddate>200901</enddate><creator>Casali, John G</creator><creator>Ahroon, William A</creator><creator>Lancaster, Jeff A</creator><general>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Medknow Publications &amp; Media Pvt. Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7U2</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200901</creationdate><title>A field investigation of hearing protection and hearing enhancement in one device: for soldiers whose ears and lives depend upon it</title><author>Casali, John G ; Ahroon, William A ; Lancaster, Jeff A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c493t-ef94007cd1b1f7dfae90da2e09dfe9433affd8209b952230d4628625d8470f4e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Armed forces</topic><topic>Aviation</topic><topic>Biomedical Research</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Data Collection</topic><topic>Data Interpretation, Statistical</topic><topic>Ear Protective Devices</topic><topic>Ears &amp; hearing</topic><topic>Ergonomics</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Hearing</topic><topic>Hearing - physiology</topic><topic>Hearing Aids</topic><topic>Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Hearing protection</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigations</topic><topic>Military</topic><topic>Military Personnel</topic><topic>Noise</topic><topic>Noise levels</topic><topic>Personal protective equipment</topic><topic>Protective equipment</topic><topic>Soldiers</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Training</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Warfare</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Casali, John G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ahroon, William A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lancaster, Jeff A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><jtitle>Noise &amp; health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Casali, John G</au><au>Ahroon, William A</au><au>Lancaster, Jeff A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A field investigation of hearing protection and hearing enhancement in one device: for soldiers whose ears and lives depend upon it</atitle><jtitle>Noise &amp; health</jtitle><addtitle>Noise Health</addtitle><date>2009-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>42</issue><spage>69</spage><epage>90</epage><pages>69-90</pages><issn>1463-1741</issn><eissn>1998-4030</eissn><abstract>Operational hearing protection and maintenance of audibility of signals and speech are considered force multipliers in military operations, increasing Soldier survivability and lethality. The in-field research described in this paper was conducted to examine operational performance effects of three different hearing enhancement protection systems (HEPS) that are intended to provide both protection and audibility. The experiment utilized operationally-defined measures in full-scale, simulated combat scenarios with Army ROTC Cadet Soldiers as subjects. The Soldiers' operational performance was evaluated in two missions: reconnaissance and raid (attack on enemy camp). Both missions had substantial hearing requirements, including communications, signal detection/recognition, and distance judgments. Operational performance was measured by objective metrics of Squad performance, including the distances required to detect an enemy insurgent camp under each HEPS, and by subjective metrics, such as the Army's dimensions of combat-related mission success as evaluated by Army Officers who served as training leaders/observers. Other subjective ratings were obtained after each training exercise from both the Officers and the Soldiers, including detailed impressions about each HEPS after extended use. Two of the three HEPS were electronic sound transmission devices (comprising an ambient sound pass-through filtering and amplification circuit): a Peltor Comtac II circumaural headset (NRR=21; 16 dB maximum gain); and a Communications Enhancement Protection System (CEPS) (NRR=29; 36 dB maximum gain). One passive, level-dependent HEPS was used, the yellow end of the Combat Arms Earplug, which provides amplitude-sensitive attenuation that sharply increases when the ambient sound is above about 110 dB (e.g., due to a gunshot), but which provides an NRR of 0 and very little attenuation below 1000 Hz in lower ambient noise levels. In the military mission entailing location of and attack on an enemy camp, the CEPS device resulted in the longest (earliest) average auditory detection distance of the camp (400 feet), followed by the Peltor (233 feet) and then the Combat Arms Earplug (150 feet), in comparison to detection by the unprotected, normal ear at about 220 feet. Commanding officers' ratings of mission performance and overall success slightly favored the electronic HEPS, but these ratings were dependent upon the particular mission undertaken. Ergonomics and usability issues abounded with the electronic HEPS, and the Soldiers' subjective ratings showed variability across all three devices, with device preference depending upon the particular dimension being rated (e.g., comfort vs. hearing ability). Clearly, the results of this in-field experiment demonstrate that more development is needed to achieve the levels of hearing performance and user acceptance from the HEPS that is desirable and needed for combat conditions. In this vein, it is important to note that HEPS designs are continually evolving, and certain upgrades to the three devices evaluated in the late 2006 timeframe of this study have occurred and further evaluations are thus warranted.</abstract><cop>India</cop><pub>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</pub><pmid>19265256</pmid><doi>10.4103/1463-1741.48564</doi><tpages>22</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1463-1741
ispartof Noise & health, 2009-01, Vol.11 (42), p.69-90
issn 1463-1741
1998-4030
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20627636
source MEDLINE; Medknow Open Access Medical Journals; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Analysis of Variance
Armed forces
Aviation
Biomedical Research
Communication
Data Collection
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Ear Protective Devices
Ears & hearing
Ergonomics
Health aspects
Hearing
Hearing - physiology
Hearing Aids
Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced - prevention & control
Hearing protection
Humans
Investigations
Military
Military Personnel
Noise
Noise levels
Personal protective equipment
Protective equipment
Soldiers
Surveys and Questionnaires
Training
United States
Warfare
title A field investigation of hearing protection and hearing enhancement in one device: for soldiers whose ears and lives depend upon it
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T01%3A54%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20field%20investigation%20of%20hearing%20protection%20and%20hearing%20enhancement%20in%20one%20device:%20for%20soldiers%20whose%20ears%20and%20lives%20depend%20upon%20it&rft.jtitle=Noise%20&%20health&rft.au=Casali,%20John%20G&rft.date=2009-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=42&rft.spage=69&rft.epage=90&rft.pages=69-90&rft.issn=1463-1741&rft.eissn=1998-4030&rft_id=info:doi/10.4103/1463-1741.48564&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA195128999%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1561531783&rft_id=info:pmid/19265256&rft_galeid=A195128999&rfr_iscdi=true