Effects of face masks on acoustic analysis and speech perception: Implications for peri-pandemic protocols

Abstract

Wearing face masks (alongside physical distancing) provides some protection against infection from COVID-19. Face masks can also change how people communicate and subsequently affect speech signal quality. This study investigated how three common face mask types (N95, surgical, and cloth) affected acoustic analysis of speech and perceived intelligibility in healthy subjects. Acoustic measures of timing, frequency, perturbation, and power spectral density were measured. Speech intelligibility and word and sentence accuracy were also examined using the Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech. Mask type impacted the power distribution in frequencies above 3 kHz for the N95 mask, and above 5 kHz in surgical and cloth masks. Measures of timing and spectral tilt mainly differed with N95 mask use. Cepstral and harmonics to noise ratios remained unchanged across mask type. No differences were observed across conditions for word or sentence intelligibility measures; however, accuracy of word and sentence translations were affected by all masks. Data presented in this study show that face masks change the speech signal, but some specific acoustic features remain largely unaffected (e.g., measures of voice quality) irrespective of mask type. Outcomes have bearing on how future speech studies are run when personal protective equipment is worn.

Effects of Wearing Face Masks While Using Different Speaking Styles in Noise on Speech Intelligibility During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…These results outline the consequences of background noise combined with the presence or absence of face masks on speech intelligibility. The findings regarding the adverse effects of face masks on speech intelligibility in the current study was slightly different from the findings in previous research (Keerstock et al, 2020;Magee et al, 2020). Magee et al (2020) measured speech intelligibility in an ideal listening environment, lacking background noise and Keerstock et al (2020) used 6T presented at SNR of +5dB and 0dB.…”

“…These different task procedures may contribute to discrepant results among the studies. Magee and colleagues' results indicated that speech intelligibility is not significantly impacted by the use of face masks in ideal listening environments; However, they did not evaluate how the presence of noise could impact speech intelligibility given the mask type employed in their study (Magee et al 2020). Keerstock et al (2020) found no significant differences in speech intelligibility when a native talker used conversational speech with and without a disposable paper mask across diverse listening conditions.…”

“…Consequently, communication partners can be consistently impacted by the adverse effects of face masks. Currently, there are only a few studies outlining how the use of face masks affects communication by decreasing speech intelligibility in noisy environments and how talkers (i.e., speakers wearing face masks) could enhance their speech to improve intelligibility in this problematic communication environment (Keerstock et al, 2020;Magee et al, 2020). Thus, it is imperative to examine the effects of wearing face masks on communication.…”

“…Disposable paper masks offered the best acoustic performance, whereas transparent masks and shields presented the greatest acoustic attenuation. Magee et al (2020) evaluated how face masks affect acoustic signals and speech perception at the single-word and sentence levels. Consistent with Corey et al (2020), Magee and colleagues found that different types of face masks affected acoustic signals differently, with higher frequencies of acoustic signals being attenuated across three types of masks (i.e., surgical, cloth, N95).…”

Mental Health and Psychological Impact on Students with or without Hearing Loss during the Recurrence of the COVID-19 Pandemic in China

“…This DASS-21 has been proven to be a reliable and effective measure [27]. The depression subscale consists of items 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, and 21 with scores ranging from normal (0-9), mild (10)(11)(12)(13), moderate (14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20), severe (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27) to extremely severe (28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42). The anxiety subscale consists of items 2, 4, 7, 9, 15, 19, and 20, with scores ranging from normal (0-7), mild (8)(9), moderate (10)(11)(12)(13)(14), severe (15)(16)(17)(18)(19), to extremely severe .…”