Revista CEFAC
https://revistacefac.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/1982-0216/20242616323
Revista CEFAC
Artigos Originais

Use of masks in the oral communication of hearing device users

Uso de máscara na comunicação oral para usuários  de dispositivos auxiliares à audição

Maria Eduarda Rigotto Alves Ferreira; Tatiane Martins Jorge; Sthella Zanchetta; Ana Cláudia Mirândola Barbosa Reis; Nelma Ellen Zamberlan Amorim

Downloads: 0
Views: 151

Abstract

Purpose: to assess the influence of wearing a mask on auditory-visual speech recognition, in a favorable listening situation, in hearing devices users.

Methods: a cross-sectional observational study comprising 52 hearing aid users, whose speech recognition was assessed with six video-recorded lists of sentences with and without masks. The mean test results in the various situations were compared using the Friedman test with Bonferroni post hoc, the significance level being set at 5%.

Results: speech recognition assessment results differed between the situations with and without masks and between mask types, with a small effect size. The post hoc, with p-values adjusted with the Bonferroni method, showed a difference between transparent masks and others. The transparent one had a higher mean (77.8%) of auditory-visual sentence recognition between the various situations. There were statistically significant differences, as the transparent mask provided a better performance than the others.

Conclusion: the auditory-visual recognition of the hearing-impaired people was better with the transparent mask.

Keywords

Persons With Hearing Impairments; Communication; Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences; Audiology

Resumo

Objetivo: avaliar a influência do uso de máscara no reconhecimento auditivo-visual de fala, em situação de escuta favorável, em usuários de dispositivos eletrônicos auxiliares à audição (DEAA).

Métodos: estudo observacional transversal. Participaram 52 usuários de dispositivos auxiliares à audição que realizaram avaliação do reconhecimento de fala com seis listas de frases apresentadas em vídeo com e sem máscaras. Para comparar as médias dos resultados do teste nas diferentes situações, foi aplicado o Teste de Friedman, com pos-hoc de Bonferroni e nível de significância 5%.

Resultados: houve diferença dos resultados da avaliação de reconhecimento de fala entre as diferentes situações, com e sem máscara, assim como entre os tipos de máscara, com tamanho de efeito de pequeno. O post-hoc, com valor de p ajustado pelo método de Bonferroni, mostrou diferença entre a máscara transparente e as demais. A máscara transparente apresentou maior média (77,8%) do reconhecimento auditivo-visual nas sentenças utilizadas entre as situações. Foram observadas diferenças estatisticamente significantes com desempenho superior da máscara transparente em relação aos outros tipos de máscaras.

Conclusão: conclui-se que o reconhecimento auditivo-visual para os deficientes auditivos foi melhor com a máscara transparente.

Palavras-chave

 Pessoas com Deficiência Auditiva; Comunicação; Fonoaudiologia; Audiologia

Referências

1. CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Webpage on the internet]. Considerations for wearing masks [accessed 2020 jun 23]. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-coverguidance.html#face-shields

2. Tavanai E, Rouhbakhsh N, Roghani Z. A review of the challenges facing people with hearing loss during the COVID-19 outbreak: toward the understanding the helpful solutions. Aud Vestib Res. 2021;30(2):62-73. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18502/avr.v30i2.6091

3. Brotto D, Sorrentino F, Agostinelli A, Lovo E, Montino S, Trevisi P et al. How great is the negative impact of masking and social distancing and how can we enhance communication skills in the elderly people? Aging Clin Exp Res. 2021;33(5):1157-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-021-01830-1 PMID: 33725340.

4. Garg S, Deshmukh CP, Singh MM, Borle A, Wilson BS. Challenges of the Deaf and Hearing Impaired in the Masked World of COVID-19. Indian J Community Med. 2021;46(1):11-14. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijcm.IJCM_581_20 PMID: 34035568.

5. Oosthuizen I, Saunders GH, Manchaiah V, Swanepoel DW. Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Virus (COVID-19) preventative measures on communication: A scoping review. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.815259 PMID: 35419343.

6. Corey RM, Jones U, Singer AC. Acoustic effects of medical, cloth, and transparent face masks on speech signals. J Acoustic Soc Am. 2020;148(4):2371-5. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0002279 PMID: 33138498.

7. Crume B. The silence behind the mask: My journey as a deaf pediatric resident amid a pandemic. Acad Pediatr. 2021;21(1):1-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2020.10.002 PMID: 33045413.

8. CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Webpage on the internet]. [accessed 2020 jun]. Considerations for wearing cloth face coverings: help slow the spread of COVID-19. Available at: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/90553

9. Costa MJ, Iório MCM, Mangabeira-Albernaz PL. Desenvolvimento de um teste de fala para avaliar a habilidade de reconhecer a fala no silêncio e no ruído. Pró-fono R. Atual. Cientif. 2000;12(2):9-16. ID: lil-280890.

10. Costa MJ, Santos SN, Lessa AH, Mezzomo CL. Proposal for implementing the Sentence Recognition Index in individuals with hearing disorders. CoDAS. 2015;27(2):148-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20150000316 PMID: 26107080.

11. Atcherson SR, Mendel LL, Baltimore WJ, Patro C, Lee S, Pousson M et al. The effect of conventional and transparent surgical masks on speech understanding in individuals with and without hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(1):58-67. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15151 PMID: 28054912.

12. Homans NC, Vroegop JL. The impact of face masks on the communication of adults with hearing loss during COVID-19 in a clinical setting. Int J Audiol. 2022;61(5):365-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2021.1952490 PMID: 34319825.

13. Yi H, Choudhury M, Hicks C. A transparent mask and clear speech benefit speech intelligibility in individuals with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2023;66(11):1-17. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_JSLHR-22-00636 PMID: 37788660.

14. Thibodeau LM, Thibodeau-Nielsen RB, Tran CMQ, Jacob RTS. Communicating during COVID-19: The effect of transparent masks for speech recognition in noise. Ear Hear. 2021;42(4):772-81. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001065 PMID: 33813522.

15. Saeidi R, Huhtakallio I, Alku P. Analysis of face mask effect on speaker recognition. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association: Interspeech'16, San Francisco, USA, Sept. 8-12, 2016. Vol. 08-12-September-2016. International Speech Communication Association. 2016. p. 1800-1804. (Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association). https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2016-518

16. 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 dec;6:49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00314-0 PMID: 34275022.

17. Perreau AE, Wu YH, Tatge B, Irwin D, Corts D. Listening effort measured in adults with normal hearing and cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(08):685-97. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.16014 PMID: 28906240.

18. Trecca EM, Gelardi M, Cassano M. COVID-19 and hearing difficulties. Am J Otolaryngol. 2020;41(4):102496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102496.11557 PMID: 32327217.

19. Lee E, Cormier K, Sharma A. Face mask use in healthcare settings: effects on communication, cognition, listening effort and strategies for amelioration. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2022;7(1):2. https://doi: 10.1186/s41235-021-00353-7 PMID: 35006342.
 


Submetido em:
29/06/2023

Aceito em:
29/11/2023

6671a188a953956b5f50f852 cefac Articles

Revista CEFAC

Share this page
Page Sections