Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
Nat Rev Chem ; 7(2): 67-68, 2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2268409
2.
Atten Percept Psychophys ; 84(3): 1016-1042, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1792350

ABSTRACT

Hearing in noise is a core problem in audition, and a challenge for hearing-impaired listeners, yet the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. We explored whether harmonic frequency relations, a signature property of many communication sounds, aid hearing in noise for normal hearing listeners. We measured detection thresholds in noise for tones and speech synthesized to have harmonic or inharmonic spectra. Harmonic signals were consistently easier to detect than otherwise identical inharmonic signals. Harmonicity also improved discrimination of sounds in noise. The largest benefits were observed for two-note up-down "pitch" discrimination and melodic contour discrimination, both of which could be performed equally well with harmonic and inharmonic tones in quiet, but which showed large harmonic advantages in noise. The results show that harmonicity facilitates hearing in noise, plausibly by providing a noise-robust pitch cue that aids detection and discrimination.


Subject(s)
Hearing Aids , Speech Perception , Auditory Perception , Auditory Threshold , Hearing , Hearing Tests , Humans , Noise , Pitch Discrimination
3.
Mayo Clin Proc ; 96(5): 1105-1107, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1472092
4.
J Surg Educ ; 79(1): 243-248, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1340743

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The Covid-19 pandemic eliminated nearly all visiting sub-internships. We seek to uncover match rate disparities across plastic surgery, otolaryngology, urology, and neurosurgery subspecialties with respect to in-person appraisals. These data aim to highlight the common practices as well as subtle differences that each subspecialty may be displaying in selecting their respective residency candidates. DESIGN: We accessed publicly available online spreadsheets between March 24 to 27 specific to the following surgical subspecialties: plastic surgery, otolaryngology, neurosurgery, and urology. We collected available information including the matched applicants' medical school, the institution at which they matched, and whether they had previous communication with their matched program. This data was then used to record whether the applicant matched at their home institution. SETTING: N/A PARTICIPANTS: N/A RESULTS: There was a statistically significant increase in the number of plastic surgery and otolaryngology applicants who matched at their home programs during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle. 12.1% and 17.2% of plastic surgery applicants matched at their home program in the 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020 application cycles, compared to 25.0% during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle (p = 0.0345). Overall, 23.4% and 22.2% of otolaryngology applicants matched at their home program in the 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020 application cycles, compared to 31.3% during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle (p = 0.0482). Neurosurgery and urology applicants did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in home match rates during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle (p = 0.164 and p = 0.105, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Covid-19 related restrictions in the 2020 to 2021 match cycle led residency programs to utilize novel selection mechanisms to evaluate applicants. Without visiting sub-internships during the 2020 to 2021 match cycle, some programs appear to have intentionally favored candidates with whom they were previously acquainted. The significantly higher number of international medical graduates and non-senior medical graduates among neurosurgery and urology residencies, respectively, likely washed out the home matching effect among these specialties but does not discount the importance of in-person appraisals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Internship and Residency , Auditory Perception , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
5.
PLoS One ; 16(7): e0253874, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1291513

ABSTRACT

Daily-life conversation relies on speech perception in quiet and noise. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, face masks have become mandatory in many situations. Acoustic attenuation of sound pressure by the mask tissue reduces speech perception ability, especially in noisy situations. Masks also can impede the process of speech comprehension by concealing the movements of the mouth, interfering with lip reading. In this prospective observational, cross-sectional study including 17 participants with normal hearing, we measured the influence of acoustic attenuation caused by medical face masks (mouth and nose protection) according to EN 14683 and of N95 masks according to EN 1149 (EN 14683) on the speech recognition threshold and listening effort in various types of background noise. Averaged over all noise signals, a surgical mask significantly reduced the speech perception threshold in noise was by 1.6 dB (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0, 2.1) and an N95 mask reduced it significantly by 2.7 dB (95% CI, 2.2, 3.2). Use of a surgical mask did not significantly increase the 50% listening effort signal-to-noise ratio (increase of 0.58 dB; 95% CI, 0.4, 1.5), but use of an N95 mask did so significantly, by 2.2 dB (95% CI, 1.2, 3.1). In acoustic measures, mask tissue reduced amplitudes by up to 8 dB at frequencies above 1 kHz, whereas no reduction was observed below 1 kHz. We conclude that face masks reduce speech perception and increase listening effort in different noise signals. Together with additional interference because of impeded lip reading, the compound effect of face masks could have a relevant impact on daily life communication even in those with normal hearing.


Subject(s)
N95 Respirators , Speech Perception , Adult , Auditory Perception , COVID-19/prevention & control , Communication , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Hearing , Humans , Male , Noise , Signal-To-Noise Ratio , Young Adult
6.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(11)2021 05 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1266723

ABSTRACT

The involvement of young people in the planning of research continues to be rare, particularly for young people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities. This paper describes our experience in establishing a Youth Research Advisory Group (YRAG) in South West Sydney (SWS), including barriers and successful strategies. One hundred and fifteen students between school Years 7 and 12 (ages 11-18) took part in at least one of five sessions between 2019 and 2021. In total, we carried out 26 YRAG sessions, with between five and 30 students in each. Sessions focused on mapping the health priorities of the participants and co-developing research project proposals related to their health priorities. Our work with students revealed that their main areas of concern were mental health and stress. This led to material changes in our research strategy, to include "Mental Health" as a new research stream and co-develop new mental health-related projects with the students. Important strategies that enabled our research included maintaining flexibility to work seamlessly with organisational and individual preferences, and ensuring our processes were directed by the schools and-most importantly-the students themselves. Strategies such as maintaining an informal context, responding rapidly to student preference, and regularly renegotiating access enabled us to engage with the students to deepen our understanding of their experiences.


Subject(s)
Child Health , Schools , Adolescent , Auditory Perception , Child , Humans , Mental Health , Students
7.
PLoS One ; 16(2): e0246842, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1099924

ABSTRACT

Face masks are an important tool for preventing the spread of COVID-19. However, it is unclear how different types of masks affect speech recognition in different levels of background noise. To address this, we investigated the effects of four masks (a surgical mask, N95 respirator, and two cloth masks) on recognition of spoken sentences in multi-talker babble. In low levels of background noise, masks had little to no effect, with no more than a 5.5% decrease in mean accuracy compared to a no-mask condition. In high levels of noise, mean accuracy was 2.8-18.2% lower than the no-mask condition, but the surgical mask continued to show no significant difference. The results demonstrate that different types of masks generally yield similar accuracy in low levels of background noise, but differences between masks become more apparent in high levels of noise.


Subject(s)
Auditory Perception/physiology , Masks , Speech Perception/physiology , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/transmission , Female , Humans , Language , Male , Masks/adverse effects , N95 Respirators/adverse effects , Noise , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Speech/physiology
8.
Int J Audiol ; 60(7): 495-506, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-947618

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of face coverings on hearing and communication. DESIGN: An online survey consisting of closed-set and open-ended questions distributed within the UK to gain insights into experiences of interactions involving face coverings, and of the impact of face coverings on communication. SAMPLE: Four hundred and sixty members of the general public were recruited via snowball sampling. People with hearing loss were intentionally oversampled to more thoroughly assess the effect of face coverings in this group. RESULTS: With few exceptions, participants reported that face coverings negatively impacted hearing, understanding, engagement, and feelings of connection with the speaker. Impacts were greatest when communicating in medical situations. People with hearing loss were significantly more impacted than those without hearing loss. Face coverings impacted communication content, interpersonal connectedness, and willingness to engage in conversation; they increased anxiety and stress, and made communication fatiguing, frustrating and embarrassing - both as a speaker wearing a face covering, and when listening to someone else who is wearing one. CONCLUSIONS: Face coverings have far-reaching impacts on communication for everyone, but especially for people with hearing loss. These findings illustrate the need for communication-friendly face-coverings, and emphasise the need to be communication-aware when wearing a face covering.


Subject(s)
Auditory Perception , COVID-19/prevention & control , Communication Barriers , Hearing Disorders/psychology , Lipreading , Masks , Persons With Hearing Impairments/psychology , COVID-19/transmission , Cues , Facial Expression , Hearing , Hearing Disorders/diagnosis , Hearing Disorders/physiopathology , Humans , Social Behavior , Visual Perception
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL