Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28(01): 058-067
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.15151
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Effect of Conventional and Transparent Surgical Masks on Speech Understanding in Individuals with and without Hearing Loss

Samuel R. Atcherson
*   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR
,
Lisa Lucks Mendel
†   School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN
,
Wesley J. Baltimore
*   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR
,
Chhayakanta Patro
†   School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN
,
Sungmin Lee
†   School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN
,
Monique Pousson
†   School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN
,
M. Joshua Spann
*   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 June 2020 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

It is generally well known that speech perception is often improved with integrated audiovisual input whether in quiet or in noise. In many health-care environments, however, conventional surgical masks block visual access to the mouth and obscure other potential facial cues. In addition, these environments can be noisy. Although these masks may not alter the acoustic properties, the presence of noise in addition to the lack of visual input can have a deleterious effect on speech understanding. A transparent (“see-through”) surgical mask may help to overcome this issue.

Purpose:

To compare the effect of noise and various visual input conditions on speech understanding for listeners with normal hearing (NH) and hearing impairment using different surgical masks.

Research Design:

Participants were assigned to one of three groups based on hearing sensitivity in this quasi-experimental, cross-sectional study.

Study Sample:

A total of 31 adults participated in this study: one talker, ten listeners with NH, ten listeners with moderate sensorineural hearing loss, and ten listeners with severe-to-profound hearing loss.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Selected lists from the Connected Speech Test were digitally recorded with and without surgical masks and then presented to the listeners at 65 dB HL in five conditions against a background of four-talker babble (+10 dB SNR): without a mask (auditory only), without a mask (auditory and visual), with a transparent mask (auditory only), with a transparent mask (auditory and visual), and with a paper mask (auditory only).

Results:

A significant difference was found in the spectral analyses of the speech stimuli with and without the masks; however, no more than ∼2 dB root mean square. Listeners with NH performed consistently well across all conditions. Both groups of listeners with hearing impairment benefitted from visual input from the transparent mask. The magnitude of improvement in speech perception in noise was greatest for the severe-to-profound group.

Conclusions:

Findings confirm improved speech perception performance in noise for listeners with hearing impairment when visual input is provided using a transparent surgical mask. Most importantly, the use of the transparent mask did not negatively affect speech perception performance in noise.

Key Words

background noise - speech perception - surgical masks

Portions of this article were presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association in Orlando, FL, November 19–22, 2014.


 

  • REFERENCES

  • American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 2004. Specifications for Audiometers. ANSI S3.6–2004 . New York, NY: ANSI;
    Google Scholar
  • American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 2008. Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms. ANSI S3.1–1999 . New York, NY: ANSI;
    Google Scholar
  • Bench J, Kowal A, Bamford J. 1979; The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol 13 (03) 108-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Campbell R, Zihl J, Massaro D, Munhall K, Cohen MM. 1997; Speechreading in the akinetopsic patient, L.M. Brain 120 (Pt 10) 1793-1803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Champion J, Holt R. 2000; Dental care for children and young people who have a hearing impairment. Br Dent J 189 (03) 155-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C. 1987; Development of the connected speech test (CST). Ear Hear 8 (05) (Suppl) 119S-126S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C, Pusakulich KM. 1988; Use of the connected speech test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 9 (04) 198-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Erber NP. 1974; Effects of angle, distance, and illumination on visual reception of speech by profoundly deaf children. J Speech Hear Res 17 (01) 99-112
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Etymotic Research 2005. Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise Test (Version 1.03) [Audio CD] . Elk Grove Village, IL: Etymotic Research;
    Google Scholar
  • Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Tishelman C. SCRN Communication Team 2005; A conceptual framework for patient-professional communication: an application to the cancer context. Psychooncology 14 (10) 801-809 , discussion 810–811
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Grant KW, Walden BE, Seitz PF. 1998; Auditory-visual speech recognition by hearing-impaired subjects: consonant recognition, sentence recognition, and auditory-visual integration. J Acoust Soc Am 103 (5 Pt 1) 2677-2690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Jeffers J, Barley M. 1971. Lipreading. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas;
    Google Scholar
  • Kochkin S. 2005; MarkeTrak VII: hearing loss population tops 31 million people. Hear Rev 12: 16-29
    Google Scholar
  • McGurk H, MacDonald J. 1976; Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264 (5588) 746-748
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mendel LL, Gardino JA, Atcherson SR. 2008; Speech understanding using surgical masks: a problem in health care?. J Am Acad Audiol 19 (09) 686-695
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Niquette P, Arcaroli J, Revit L, Parkinson A, Staller S, Skiner M, Killion M.. 2003 Development of the BKB-SIN Test. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Auditory Society, Scottsdale, AZ
    PubMed
  • Preminger JE, Lin HB, Payen M, Levitt H. 1998; Selective visual masking in speechreading. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41 (03) 564-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Roup CM, Wiley TL, Safady SH, Stoppenbach DT. 1998; Tympanometric screening norms for adults. Am J Audiol 7 (02) 55-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM, Van Wie S, Gifford RH, Loizou PC, Loiselle LM, Oakes T, Cook S.. 2012; Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 33 (01) 112-117
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Studebaker GA. 1985; A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28 (03) 455-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Thomas SM, Jordan TR. 2004; Contributions of oral and extraoral facial movement to visual and audiovisual speech perception. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 30 (05) 873-888
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Way TJ, Long A, Weihing J, Ritchie R, Jones R, Bush M, Shinn JB.. 2013; Effect of noise on auditory processing in the operating room. J Am Coll Surg 216 (05) 933-938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wieczorek SS. 2013 Lipreading Difficulty during Audiovisual Integration. Independent Studies and Capstones. Paper 657. Program in Audiology and Communication Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. http://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/pacs_capstones/657
    PubMed