Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35645844›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Face Masks Impact Auditory and Audiovisual Consonant Recognition in Children With and Without Hearing Loss.

Kaylah Lalonde, Emily Buss, Margaret K Miller, Lori J Leibold

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Risks and benefits of face masks in children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Face masking for children - time to reconsider.The Journal of infection · 2022
    Review
  8. Early Word Segmentation Behind the Mask.Frontiers in psychology · 2022
    Article
  9. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kaylah LalondeAudiovisual Speech Processing Laboratory, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Center for Hearing Research, Omaha, NE, United States.
Emily BussSpeech Perception and Auditory Research at Carolina Laboratory, Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Margaret K MillerHuman Auditory Development Laboratory, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Center for Hearing Research, Omaha, NE, United States.
Lori J LeiboldHuman Auditory Development Laboratory, Boys Town National Research Hospital, Center for Hearing Research, Omaha, NE, United States.
Boys Town National Research Hospital · USBoys Town · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

The Impact of Mild Hearing Loss on Auditory Perception in Complex EnvironmentsP20GM109023 · NIGMS · FATHER FLANAGAN'S BOYS' HOME · PI CHATTERJEE, MONITA · 2014 to 2023
$23.4M
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO AND RELEASE FROM MASKING IN INFANCY AND CHILDHOODR01DC011038 · NIDCD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI LEIBOLD, LORI J. · 2011 to 2020
$4.3M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC011038NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM109023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Teachers and students are wearing face masks in many classrooms to limit the spread of the coronavirus. Face masks disrupt speech understanding by concealing lip-reading cues and reducing transmission of high-frequency acoustic speech content. Transparent masks provide greater access to visual speech cues than opaque masks but tend to cause greater acoustic attenuation. This study examined the effects of four types of face masks on auditory-only and audiovisual speech recognition in 18 children with bilateral hearing loss, 16 children with normal hearing, and 38 adults with normal hearing tested in their homes, as well as 15 adults with normal hearing tested in the laboratory. Stimuli simulated the acoustic attenuation and visual obstruction caused by four different face masks: hospital, fabric, and two transparent masks. Participants tested in their homes completed auditory-only and audiovisual consonant recognition tests with speech-spectrum noise at 0 dB SNR. Adults tested in the lab completed the same tests at 0 and/or -10 dB SNR. A subset of participants from each group completed a visual-only consonant recognition test with no mask. Consonant recognition accuracy and transmission of three phonetic features (place of articulation, manner of articulation, and voicing) were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models. Children with hearing loss identified consonants less accurately than children with normal hearing and adults with normal hearing tested at 0 dB SNR. However, all the groups were similarly impacted by face masks. Under auditory-only conditions, results were consistent with the pattern of high-frequency acoustic attenuation; hospital masks had the least impact on performance. Under audiovisual conditions, transparent masks had less impact on performance than opaque masks. High-frequency attenuation and visual obstruction had the greatest impact on place perception. The latter finding was consistent with the visual-only feature transmission data. These results suggest that the combination of noise and face masks negatively impacts speech understanding in children. The best mask for promoting speech understanding in noisy environments depend on whether visual cues will be accessible: hospital masks are best under auditory-only conditions, but well-fit transparent masks are best when listeners have a clear, consistent view of the talker's face.

Indexed as

audiovisual perceptionchildrenCOVID-19face maskhearing lossspeech intelligibility

Identifiers

PMID35645844
PMCPMC9137424
OpenAlexW4280547379

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.