BergerE.H. (1979). EARLogs #1 and #2 on Hearing Protector Attenuation Measurements and Single Number Ratings are available upon request from E-A-CorporationR.
2.
RintelmannW.F. (1979). Hearing Assessment.University Park Press, Baltimore, MD.
3.
RinkT.L. (1979). Hearing Protection and Speech Discrimination in Hearing-Impaired Persons. Sound and Vibration, vol. 13. No. 1. 22–25.
4.
ColesR.R.A. and RiceC.G. (1965). Earplugs and Impaired Hearing. J. Sound Vib., Vol. 3, No. 3, 521–523.
5.
HowellK. and MartinA.M. (1975). An Investigation of the Effects of Hearing Protectors on Vocal Communication in Noise. J. Sound Vib., Vol. 41, No. 2, 181–196.
6.
LindemanH.E. (1976). Speech Intelligibility and the Use of Hearing Protectors. Audiology, Vol. 15, 348–356.
7.
KryterK.D. (1946). Effects of Ear Protective Devices on the Intelligibility of Speech in Noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 18, No. 2, 413–417.
8.
Hearing impairment in this context may be approximated as an HTL averaged over 2k, 3k.4 kHz that is > 40 dB.
9.
ActonW.I. (1977). Problems Associated with the Use of Hearing Protection. Ann. Occup. Hyg., Vol. 20, 387–395.
10.
KryterK.D. (1970). The Effects of Noise on Man.Academic Press, New York, NY.
11.
RiceC.G. and ColesR.R.A. (1966). Design Factors and Use of Ear Protection. Brit. J. Industr. Med Vol 23194–203.
12.
MichaelP.L. (1965). Ear Protectors - Their Usefulness and Limitations. Arch. Env. Health, Vol. 10, 612–618.
13.
GasawayD.C. (1979). Personal communication. In most Air Force communication systems the proximity of the microphone to the speaker's lips, alters the frequency balance of speech in a way that insures that HPDs will almost always improve SD. even for hearing impaired individuals.
14.
LawrenceM. and YantisP.A. (1956). Onset and Growth of Aural Harmonics in the Overloaded Ear. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 28, 852–858.
15.
ActonW.I. (1970). Speech Intelligibility in a Background Noise and Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. Ergonomics, Vol. 13. No. 5, 546–554.
16.
AtherlyG.R.C. and NobleW.G. (1970). Effect of Ear -Defenders (ear muffs) on the Localization of Sound. Brit. J. Industr. Med. Vol. 27260–265.
17.
NobleW.G. and RussellG. (1972). Theoretical and Practical Implications of the Effects of Hearing Protection Devices on Localization Ability. Acta Otolaryng. Vol. 74. 29–36.
18.
RussellG. (1977). Limits to Behavioral Compensation for Auditory Localization in Earmuff Listening Conditions. J. Acoust. Soc. Am, Vol. 61. No. 1. 219–220.
19.
ForrestMR. and ColesR.R.A. (1970). Problems of Communications and Ear Protection in the Royal Marines. J. Royal Naval Med. Service. Vol. 56. No. 1-2. 162–169.
20.
E-A-CorporationR.internal research notes. N246033, (1979).
21.
ColesR.R.A., GarintherG.R., HodgeD.C., and RiceC.G. (1968). Hazardous Exposure to Impulse Noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Vol. 43, No. 2. 336–343.
22.
MoskoJ.D. and FletcherJ.L. (1971). Evaluation of the Gundefender Earplug: Temporary Threshold Shift and Speech Intelligibility. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 49, No. 6 (Part 1). 1732–1733.
23.
JohnstonJ. (1976). Hear and Now. Gun World. April issue.
24.
ColesR.R.A. and RiceC.G. (1966). Speech Communications Effects and TTS Reduction Provided by V51R and Selectone-Earplugs K. Under Conditions of High Intensity and Impulsive Noise. J. Sound Vib. Vol. 4. No. 2. 156–171.