The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed many aspects of our daily lives, including how we communicate. With the widespread use of respiratory protective masks (RPMs), concerns have arisen about their impact on voice quality and speech intelligibility. As practitioners in the field of speech therapy, understanding these effects is crucial to ensuring effective communication and accurate assessments.
Understanding the Impact of RPMs on Voice Quality
A recent systematic review and meta-analysis titled "The Impact of Protective Face Coverings on Acoustic Markers in Voice" delves into how RPMs affect acoustic measurements. The study analyzed data from 422 participants across nine studies, comparing acoustic markers with and without masks. The findings revealed no significant differences in common voice quality parameters such as jitter, shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio (HNR), smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPPS), and sound pressure level (SPL) when masks were worn.
The Significance of Mask Types
While the overall impact of RPMs on acoustic markers was minimal, the study highlighted significant differences between mask types. Medical/surgical masks and FFP2/(K)N95 masks showed variations in parameters like jitter, HNR, CPPS, and SPL. This suggests that the type of mask used can influence acoustic measurements, emphasizing the importance of consistency in mask usage during assessments.
Practical Implications for Practitioners
For practitioners, these findings offer valuable insights into adapting clinical practices:
- Consistency in Mask Usage: To ensure accurate comparisons and assessments, use the same type of mask consistently during evaluations.
- Awareness of Acoustic Variations: Be mindful of potential acoustic variations caused by different mask types and adjust your assessment techniques accordingly.
- Continued Research: Encourage further research to explore long-term effects of RPMs on voice quality and to assess other mask types not covered in the current study.
Encouraging Further Research
The study's limitations provide a roadmap for future research. Expanding investigations to include different mask types such as cloth masks or face shields could offer a more comprehensive understanding. Additionally, exploring long-term effects of prolonged mask usage on vocal fatigue and discomfort would be beneficial.
Conclusion
The meta-analysis underscores the importance of consistency in mask usage during acoustic assessments. While RPMs may not significantly impact voice quality parameters, the type of mask used can lead to variations that practitioners should consider. By embracing these insights and encouraging further research, we can continue to enhance our understanding and improve communication strategies in clinical settings.
To read the original research paper, please follow this link: The Impact of Protective Face Coverings on Acoustic Markers in Voice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
