Linda M Thibodeau1, Rachel B Thibodeau-Nielsen2, Chi Mai Quynh Tran1, Regina Tangerino de Souza Jacob3. 1. Callier Center for Communication Disorders, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, The University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, Texas, USA. 2. Department of Human Development and Family Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA. 3. Bauru School of Dentistry, Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of São Paulo, research fellow abroad at The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the speech recognition in noise when using a transparent mask that allows greater visibility of the talker's face compared to an opaque mask in persons with normal and impaired hearing via an online format. DESIGN: A repeated-measures design was used to evaluate the auditory-visual recognition of sentences recorded in background noise with transparent and opaque face masks, and without a mask (N = 154). In a smaller follow-up study (N = 29), the same files were presented via auditory-only presentation to determine if differences observed in the transparent and opaque mask conditions were attributable to additional visual cues or to acoustic differences between the recordings of the two mask types. Listeners completed the 40-minute online session on a computer, laptop, or tablet in a quiet room via their personal listening devices (earbuds or hearing assistive device). The adult volunteers who used English as their first language were recruited through social media links and email and categorized into three groups: normal hearing and confirmed or suspected hearing loss either with or without the use of assistive listening devices. RESULTS: Auditory-visual recognition of sentences recorded with the transparent mask was significantly better (M = 68.9%) than for sentences recorded with the opaque mask (M = 58.9%) for all participants. There was a trend for those who used hearing assistive technology to score lower than the other two groups who had similar performance across all conditions regardless of the mask type. Subjective ratings of confidence and concentration followed the expected pattern based on objective scores. Results of the auditory-only presentation of the sentences to listeners with normal hearing suggested that the transparent mask benefits were not attributable to an acoustic advantage but rather to the addition of the visual cues of the talker's face available through the transparent mask. In fact, performance in the auditory-only presentation was significantly lower with the transparent mask (M = 40.7%) compared to the opaque mask (M = 58.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Use of transparent masks can significantly facilitate speech recognition in noise even for persons with normal hearing and thus may reduce stressful communication challenges experienced in medical, employment, and educational settings during the global pandemic. To mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and facilitate communication, safety-approved transparent masks are strongly encouraged over opaque masks.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the speech recognition in noise when using a transparent mask that allows greater visibility of the talker's face compared to an opaque mask in persons with normal and impaired hearing via an online format. DESIGN: A repeated-measures design was used to evaluate the auditory-visual recognition of sentences recorded in background noise with transparent and opaque face masks, and without a mask (N = 154). In a smaller follow-up study (N = 29), the same files were presented via auditory-only presentation to determine if differences observed in the transparent and opaque mask conditions were attributable to additional visual cues or to acoustic differences between the recordings of the two mask types. Listeners completed the 40-minute online session on a computer, laptop, or tablet in a quiet room via their personal listening devices (earbuds or hearing assistive device). The adult volunteers who used English as their first language were recruited through social media links and email and categorized into three groups: normal hearing and confirmed or suspected hearing loss either with or without the use of assistive listening devices. RESULTS: Auditory-visual recognition of sentences recorded with the transparent mask was significantly better (M = 68.9%) than for sentences recorded with the opaque mask (M = 58.9%) for all participants. There was a trend for those who used hearing assistive technology to score lower than the other two groups who had similar performance across all conditions regardless of the mask type. Subjective ratings of confidence and concentration followed the expected pattern based on objective scores. Results of the auditory-only presentation of the sentences to listeners with normal hearing suggested that the transparent mask benefits were not attributable to an acoustic advantage but rather to the addition of the visual cues of the talker's face available through the transparent mask. In fact, performance in the auditory-only presentation was significantly lower with the transparent mask (M = 40.7%) compared to the opaque mask (M = 58.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Use of transparent masks can significantly facilitate speech recognition in noise even for persons with normal hearing and thus may reduce stressful communication challenges experienced in medical, employment, and educational settings during the global pandemic. To mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and facilitate communication, safety-approved transparent masks are strongly encouraged over opaque masks.