The Impact of Facial Personal Protective Equipment on Speech Intensity.
Journal
Urogynecology (Philadelphia, Pa.)
ISSN: 2771-1897
Titre abrégé: Urogynecology (Phila)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918452588006676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2023
01 04 2023
Historique:
medline:
12
9
2023
pubmed:
3
2
2023
entrez:
2
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Facial personal protective equipment (FPPE) filters small particles in the operating room (OR) but also affects speech production, diminishing the effective transfer of information among OR team members. The aim of the study is to assess the attenuating effects of different combinations of layered FPPE on speech intensity, including potential differences in the effect of talkers with varying backgrounds and speaking volumes. We recruited 30 speakers from health and nonhealth occupations with English as either their first or second language. All participants spoke unmasked, at varying voice levels into a portable Zoom H4n device 12 inches from the microphone. These no-mask recordings were played from a Styrofoam head, fitted with 7 combinations of FPPE commonly worn in the COVID-19 era, with the attenuated signals assessed for digital average signal levels. We submitted these attenuation values to an omnibus mixed analysis of variance and performed a spectral analysis on signal attenuation stratified by typical speech frequency bands. Signal attenuation was strongly determined by FPPE combination, regardless of talker sex, first language, and occupation ( P < 0.01, η 2p = 0.881). The effects of vocal output were also significant ( P < 0.01, η 2p = 0.881). Soft talkers experienced particularly high attenuation at frequency bands higher than 2,000 Hz. The signal of the softest talkers, when asked to speak loudly, was similar to the loud talkers' signal. Layered FPPE in the OR protects the surgical team from small particle exposure but may increase communication failures. Our data can help OR staff choose FPPE and alter their vocal volume accordingly.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36730870
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001282
pii: 02273501-990000000-00044
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
422-429Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 American Urogynecologic Society. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
George J, Verma R, Shafqat N. Physiological hazard assessment while wielding personal protective equipment (PPE) among health care workers. Cureus 2022;14(3):e23510. doi:10.7759/cureus.23510.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.23510
Agrawal V, Yadav SK, Agarwal P, et al. Strategies for optimizing the use of PPE during surgery in COVID-19 pandemic: rapid scoping review of guidelines. Indian J Surg 2021;83(1):17–27. doi:10.1007/s12262-020-02713-x.
doi: 10.1007/s12262-020-02713-x
Magee M, Lewis C, Noffs G, et al. Effects of face masks on acoustic analysis and speech perception: implications for peri-pandemic protocols. J Acoust Soc Am 2020;148(6):3562–3568. doi:10.1121/10.0002873.
doi: 10.1121/10.0002873
Corey RM, Jones U, Singer AC. Acoustic effects of medical, cloth, and transparent face masks on speech signals. J Acoust Soc Am 2020;148(4):2371–2375. doi:10.1121/10.0002279.
doi: 10.1121/10.0002279
Arabaci A, Önler E. The effect of noise levels in the operating room on the stress levels and workload of the operating room team. J Perianesth Nurs 2021;36(1):54–58. doi:10.1016/j.jopan.2020.06.024.
doi: 10.1016/j.jopan.2020.06.024
Toscano JC, Toscano CM. Effects of face masks on speech recognition in multi-talker babble noise. PLoS One 2021;16(2):e0246842. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0246842.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246842
Radonovich LJ Jr, Yanke R, Cheng J, et al. Diminished speech intelligibility associated with certain types of respirators worn by healthcare workers. J Occup Environ Hyg 2010;7(1):63–70. doi:10.1080/15459620903404803.
doi: 10.1080/15459620903404803
Palmiero AJ, Symons D, Morgan JW 3rd, et al. Speech intelligibility assessment of protective facemasks and air-purifying respirators. J Occup Environ Hyg 2016;13(12):960–968. doi:10.1080/15459624.2016.1200723.
doi: 10.1080/15459624.2016.1200723
Chmelik V, Urbán D, Zelem L, et al. Effect of mouth mask and face shield on speech spectrum in Slovak language. Appl Sci 2021;11(11):4829. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/app11114829
doi: 10.3390/app11114829
Yi H, Pingsterhaus A, Song W. Effects of wearing face masks while using different speaking styles in noise on speech intelligibility during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychol 2021;12:e682677. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.682677.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.682677
Brown VA, Van Engen KJ, Peelle JE. Face mask type affects audiovisual speech intelligibility and subjective listening effort in young and older adults. Cogn Res Princ Implic 2021;6(1):49. doi:10.1186/s41235-021-00314-0.
doi: 10.1186/s41235-021-00314-0
Atcherson SR, McDowell BR, Howard MP. Acoustic effects of non-transparent and transparent face coverings. J Acoust Soc Am 2021;149(4):2249–2254. doi:10.1121/10.0003962.
doi: 10.1121/10.0003962
Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Studdert DM, et al. Patterns of communication breakdowns resulting in injury to surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204(4):533–540. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.010.
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.010
Thiels CA, Lal TM, Nienow JM, et al. Surgical never events and contributing human factors. Surgery 2015;158(2):515–521. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2015.03.053.
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.03.053
Gawande AA, Zinner MJ, Studdert DM, et al. Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery 2003;133(6):614–621. doi:10.1067/msy.2003.169.
doi: 10.1067/msy.2003.169
Mullin WJ, Gerace WJ, Mestre J, et al. Fundamentals of Sound with Applications to Speech and Hearing . Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon; 2003.
Uchanski RM. Clear Speech. In: Pisoni DB, Remez RE, eds. The Handbook of Speech Perception . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2005:207–235.
Northern JL, Downs MP. Hearing in Children . 5th ed. United Kingdom: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.
Joshi A, Procter T, Kulesz PA. COVID-19: acoustic measures of voice in individuals wearing different facemasks. J Voice 2021;S0892-1997(21)00201-0. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.06.015.
doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.06.015
Caniato M, Marzi A, Gasparella A. How much COVID-19 face protections influence speech intelligibility in classrooms? Appl Acoust 2021;178:108051.19.
Lu Y, Cooke M. Speech production modifications produced by competing talkers, babble, and stationary noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2008;124(5):3261–3275. doi:10.1121/1.2990705.
doi: 10.1121/1.2990705
Tartter VC, Gomes H, Litwin E. Some acoustic effects of listening to noise on speech production. J Acoust Soc Am 1993;94(4):2437–2440. doi:10.1121/1.408234.
doi: 10.1121/1.408234
Patel R, Schell KW. The influence of linguistic content on the Lombard effect. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008;51(1):209–220. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/016).
doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/016)
Way TJ, Long A, Weihing J, et al. Effect of noise on auditory processing in the operating room. J Am Coll Surg 2013;216(5):933–938. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.048.
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.048