Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35039580›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Speech air flow with and without face masks.

Donald Derrick, Natalia Kabaliuk, Luke Longworth, Peiman Pishyar-Dehkordi, Mark Jermy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Donald DerrickNew Zealand Institute of Language, Brain, and Behaviour, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 8041, New Zealand. donald.derrick@canterbury.ac.nz.
Natalia KabaliukDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 8041, New Zealand.
Luke LongworthDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 8041, New Zealand.
Peiman Pishyar-DehkordiDepartment of Linguistics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 8041, New Zealand.
Mark JermyDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 8041, New Zealand.

Funding

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment CIAF-160 UOCX2004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Face masks slow exhaled air flow and sequester exhaled particles. There are many types of face masks on the market today, each having widely varying fits, filtering, and air redirection characteristics. While particle filtration and flow resistance from masks has been well studied, their effects on speech air flow has not. We built a schlieren system and recorded speech air flow with 14 different face masks, comparing it to mask-less speech. All of the face masks reduced air flow from speech, but some allowed air flow features to reach further than 40 cm from a speaker's lips and nose within a few seconds, and all the face masks allowed some air to escape above the nose. Evidence from available literature shows that distancing and ventilation in higher-risk indoor environment provide more benefit than wearing a face mask. Our own research shows all the masks we tested provide some additional benefit of restricting air flow from a speaker. However, well-fitted mask specifically designed for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease reduce air flow the most. Future research will study the effects of face masks on speech communication in order to facilitate cost/benefit analysis of mask usage in various environments.

Indexed as

MasksAdultDisease Transmission, InfectiousEquipment DesignExhalationFiltrationHumansMaleSpeechYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID35039580
PMCPMC8763952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.