Influence of surgical and N95 face masks on speech perception and listening effort in noise.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
23
03
2021
accepted:
14
06
2021
entrez:
1
7
2021
pubmed:
2
7
2021
medline:
15
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Daily-life conversation relies on speech perception in quiet and noise. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, face masks have become mandatory in many situations. Acoustic attenuation of sound pressure by the mask tissue reduces speech perception ability, especially in noisy situations. Masks also can impede the process of speech comprehension by concealing the movements of the mouth, interfering with lip reading. In this prospective observational, cross-sectional study including 17 participants with normal hearing, we measured the influence of acoustic attenuation caused by medical face masks (mouth and nose protection) according to EN 14683 and of N95 masks according to EN 1149 (EN 14683) on the speech recognition threshold and listening effort in various types of background noise. Averaged over all noise signals, a surgical mask significantly reduced the speech perception threshold in noise was by 1.6 dB (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0, 2.1) and an N95 mask reduced it significantly by 2.7 dB (95% CI, 2.2, 3.2). Use of a surgical mask did not significantly increase the 50% listening effort signal-to-noise ratio (increase of 0.58 dB; 95% CI, 0.4, 1.5), but use of an N95 mask did so significantly, by 2.2 dB (95% CI, 1.2, 3.1). In acoustic measures, mask tissue reduced amplitudes by up to 8 dB at frequencies above 1 kHz, whereas no reduction was observed below 1 kHz. We conclude that face masks reduce speech perception and increase listening effort in different noise signals. Together with additional interference because of impeded lip reading, the compound effect of face masks could have a relevant impact on daily life communication even in those with normal hearing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34197513
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253874
pii: PONE-D-21-09549
pmc: PMC8248731
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0253874Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Air Med J. 2011 Mar-Apr;30(2):97-102
pubmed: 21382570
J Acoust Soc Am. 2020 Dec;148(6):3562
pubmed: 33379897
J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Mar;127(3):1491-505
pubmed: 20329849
J Am Acad Audiol. 2017 Jan;28(1):58-67
pubmed: 28054912
Risk Anal. 2020 May;40(5):902-907
pubmed: 32356927
Nature. 2020 Jul;583(7816):352-355
pubmed: 32651472
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 May 26;58(6):
pubmed: 32245833
Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2020 Aug 1;24(4):345
pubmed: 32678363
Arch Otolaryngol. 1970 Mar;91(3):273-9
pubmed: 5414080
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017 Sep 18;60(9):2687-2703
pubmed: 28651255
J Acoust Soc Am. 2016 Feb;139(2):703-12
pubmed: 26936554
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2016 Dec;13(12):960-968
pubmed: 27362358
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 Nov;138:110328
pubmed: 32920450
Am J Audiol. 2017 Oct 12;26(3S):378-392
pubmed: 29049622
J Voice. 2020 Sep 30;:
pubmed: 33011037
J Acoust Soc Am. 2017 Jun;141(6):4680
pubmed: 28679238
J Laryngol Otol. 2020 Sep 28;:1-4
pubmed: 32981539
MMW Fortschr Med. 2020 Aug;162(14):42-44
pubmed: 32780377
Ear Hear. 2018 Mar/Apr;39(2):204-214
pubmed: 28938250
BMJ. 2020 Jul 9;370:m2683
pubmed: 32646862
J Acoust Soc Am. 2020 Oct;148(4):2371
pubmed: 33138498
Psychol Med. 2020 Sep 17;:1
pubmed: 32938519
J Acoust Soc Am. 1978 Feb;63(2):533-49
pubmed: 670550
J Acoust Soc Am. 1987 Dec;82(6):2145-7
pubmed: 3429736
Int J Audiol. 2010 Dec;49(12):891-903
pubmed: 21070124
J Am Acad Audiol. 2008 Oct;19(9):686-95
pubmed: 19418708
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2020 Jul 6;9(1):100
pubmed: 32631450