Reliability of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index AVQI and the Acoustic Breathiness Index (ABI) when wearing CoViD-19 protective masks

8Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: Investigating whether the Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) and the Acoustic Breathiness Index (ABI) are valid and comparable to previous unmasked measurements if the speaker wears a surgical mask or a FFP-2 mask to reduce the risk of transmitting air-borne viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. Methods: A convenience sample of 31 subjectively healthy participants was subjected to AVQI and ABI voice examination four times: Twice wearing no mask, once with a surgical mask and once with a FFP-2 mask as used regularly in our hospital. The order of the four mask conditions was randomized. The difference in the results between the two recordings without a mask was then compared to the differences between the recordings with each mask and one recording without a mask. Results: Sixty-two percent of the AVQI readings without a mask represented perfectly healthy voices, the largest AVQI without a mask value was 4.0. The mean absolute difference in AVQI was 0.45 between the measurements without masks, 0.48 between no mask and surgical mask and 0.51 between no mask and FFP-2 mask. The results were neither clinically nor statistically significant. For the ABI the resulting absolute differences (in the same order) were 0.48, 0.69 and 0.56, again neither clinically nor statistically different. Conclusion: Based on a convenience sample of healthy or only mildly impaired voices wearing CoViD-19 protective masks does not substantially impair the results of either AVQI or ABI results.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lehnert, B., Herold, J., Blaurock, M., & Busch, C. J. (2022). Reliability of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index AVQI and the Acoustic Breathiness Index (ABI) when wearing CoViD-19 protective masks. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 279(9), 4617–4621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07417-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free