Effect of Wearing Different Masks on Acoustic, Aerodynamic, and Formant Parameters

Gao, Yan An; Yan, Feng; Wu, Di; Lu, Feiao; He, Hong; Tian, Chenghua

doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2023.06.018

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these, nine studies met the criteria for inclusion in the current review. The study details of these selected papers can be obtained in Table 1 [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. In total, 422 volunteers were investigated without and with different types of masks, ranging from seven to one hundred and fifty-nine participants in the studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The present meta-analysis was useful to assess an overall picture of the possible impact on the outcome of acoustic measurements based on RPMs. Although some systematic reviews and further single studies noted for HNR [ 6 , 8 , 17 , 23 , 24 , 25 ], Jitter [ 26 ], Shimmer [ 24 , 26 ], CPPS [ 18 , 21 ], SPL [ 6 , 8 , 18 , 26 ], and AVQI [ 21 ] significantly effects by RPMs, the present evaluation of this meta-analysis did not support these findings using the software Praat for the signal processing of the included acoustic measures. Further studies that were not included in the present meta-analysis (based on different signal processing methods of the acoustic parameters or other mask types) also concluded that for the same acoustic measures for vocally healthy and voice-disordered individuals, no significant differences between wearing a RPM or not [ 27 , 28 , 29 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The following supporting information can be downloaded at https: //www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12185922/s1, Table S1: Search strategies for systematic review; Table S2: Risk of Bias analyzed with AHRQ Methodology Checklist for cross-sectional studies. References [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The following supporting information can be downloaded at , Table S1: Search strategies for systematic review; Table S2: Risk of Bias analyzed with AHRQ Methodology Checklist for cross-sectional studies. References [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ] are cited in the Supplementary Materials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jit%: jitter; Shim%: shimmer; HNR: harmonics-to-noise ratio; CPPS: cepstral peak prominence smooth; AVQI: Acoustic Voice Quality Index; SPL: sound pressure level, habitual sound intensity level.Figure 2. Forest plots of measurements Jit% and Shim%[15,16,20,21,23]. Figure2.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Impact of Protective Face Coverings on Acoustic Markers in Voice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Barsties v. Latoszek,

Jansen,

Watts

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Wearing respiratory protective masks (RPMs) has become common worldwide, especially in healthcare settings, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hypotheses have suggested that sound transmission could be limited by RPMs, which possibly affects the characteristics of acoustic energy and speech intelligibility. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of RPMs on acoustic measurements through a systematic review with meta-analysis. Methods: Five database searches were conducted, ranging from their inception to August 2023, as well as a manual search. Cross-sectional studies were included that provided data on widely used gender-independent clinical acoustic voice quality measures (jitter, shimmer, HNR, CPPS, and AVQI) and habitual sound pressure level (SPL). Results: We found nine eligible research studies with a total of 422 participants who were compared both without masks and with different types of masks. All included studies focused on individuals with vocally healthy voices, while two of the studies also included those with voice disorders. The results from the meta-analysis were related to medical/surgical and FFP2/(K)N95 masks. None of the acoustic measurements showed significant differences between the absence and presence of masks (p > 0.05). When indirectly comparing both mask types, statistical significance was identified for parameters of jitter, HNR, CPPS and SPL (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The present meta-analysis indicates that certain types of RPMs have no significant influence on common voice quality parameters and SPL compared to recordings without masks. Nevertheless, it is plausible that significant differences in acoustic parameters might exist between different mask types. Consequently, it is advisable for the clinical practice to always use the same mask type when using RPMs to ensure high comparability and accuracy of measurement results.

show abstract