ArticleHeliyon2024
The impact of face masks on face-to-face neural tracking of speech: Auditory and visual obstacles.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lip-Reading: Advances and Unresolved Questions in a Key Communication Skill.Audiology research · 2025Review
- Comparing in-home telehealth and in-person administration of neuropsychological measures in an outpatient pediatric sample during the COVID-19 pandemic.The Clinical neuropsychologist · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Face masks provide fundamental protection against the transmission of respiratory viruses but hamper communication. We estimated auditory and visual obstacles generated by face masks on communication by measuring the neural tracking of speech. To this end, we recorded the EEG while participants were exposed to naturalistic audio-visual speech, embedded in 5-talker noise, in three contexts: (i) no-mask (audio-visual information was fully available), (ii) virtual mask (occluded lips, but intact audio), and (iii) real mask (occluded lips and degraded audio). Neural tracking of lip movements and of the sound envelope of speech was measured through backward modeling, that is, by reconstructing stimulus properties from neural activity. Behaviorally, face masks increased perceived listening difficulty and phonological errors in speech content retrieval. At the neural level, we observed that the occlusion of the mouth abolished lip tracking and dampened neural tracking of the speech envelope at the earliest processing stages. By contrast, degraded acoustic information related to face mask filtering altered neural tracking of speech envelope at later processing stages. Finally, a consistent link emerged between the increment of perceived listening difficulty and the drop in reconstruction performance of speech envelope when attending to a speaker wearing a face mask. Results clearly dissociated the visual and auditory impact of face masks on the neural tracking of speech. While the visual obstacle related to face masks hampered the ability to predict and integrate audio-visual speech, the auditory filter generated by face masks impacted neural processing stages typically associated with auditory selective attention. The link between perceived difficulty and neural tracking drop also provides evidence of the impact of face masks on the metacognitive levels subtending face-to-face communication.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.