Influence of Protective Face Coverings on the Speech Recognition of Cochlear Implant Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to characterize the effects of wearing face coverings on: 1) acoustic speech cues, and 2) speech recognition of patients with hearing loss who listen with a cochlear implant. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary referral center between July and September 2020. A female talker recorded sentences in three conditions: no face covering, N95 mask, and N95 mask plus a face shield. Spectral differences were analyzed between speech produced in each condition. The speech recognition in each condition for twenty-three adult patients with at least 6 months of cochlear implant use was assessed. RESULTS: Spectral analysis demonstrated preferential attenuation of high-frequency speech information with the N95 mask plus face shield condition compared to the other conditions. Speech recognition did not differ significantly between the uncovered (median 90% [IQR 89%-94%]) and N95 mask conditions (91% [IQR 86%-94%]; P = .253); however, speech recognition was significantly worse in the N95 mask plus face shield condition (64% [IQR 48%-75%]) compared to the uncovered (P < .001) or N95 mask (P < .001) conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The type and combination of protective face coverings used have differential effects on attenuation of speech information, influencing speech recognition of patients with hearing loss. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need to protect patients and clinicians from spread of disease while maximizing patient speech recognition. The disruptive effect of wearing a face shield in conjunction with a mask may prompt clinicians to consider alternative eye protection, such as goggles, in appropriate clinical situations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:E2038-E2043, 2021.

The Influence of Forced Social Isolation on the Auditory Ecology and Psychosocial Functions of Listeners With Cochlear Implants During COVID-19 Mitigation Efforts.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of social distancing on communication and psychosocial variables among individuals with hearing impairment during COVID-19 pandemic. It was our concern that patients who already found themselves socially isolated (Wie et al. 2010) as a result of their hearing loss would be perhaps more susceptible to changes in their communication habits resulting in further social isolation, anxiety, and depression. We wanted to better understand how forced social isolation (as part of COVID-19 mitigation) effected a group of individuals with hearing impairment from an auditory ecology and psychosocial perspective. We hypothesized that the listening environments would be different as a result of social isolation when comparing subject's responses regarding activities and participation before COVID-19 and during the COVID-19 pandemic. This change would lead to an increase in experienced and perceived social isolation, anxiety, and depression. DESIGN: A total of 48 adults with at least 12 months of cochlear implant (CI) experience reported their listening contexts and experiences pre-COVID and during-COVID using Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA; methodology collecting a respondent's self-reports in their natural environments) through a smartphone-based app, and six paper and pencil questionnaires. The Smartphone app and paper-pencil questionnaires address topics related to their listening environment, social isolation, depression, anxiety, lifestyle and demand, loneliness, and satisfaction with amplification. Data from these two-time points were compared to better understand the effects of social distancing on the CI recipients' communication abilities. RESULTS: EMA demonstrated that during-COVID CI recipients were more likely to stay home or be outdoors. CI recipients reported that they were less likely to stay indoors outside of their home relative to the pre-COVID condition. Social distancing also had a significant effect on the overall signal-to-noise ratio of the environments indicating that the listening environments had better signal-to-noise ratios. CI recipients also reported better speech understanding, less listening effort, less activity limitation due to hearing loss, less social isolation due to hearing loss, and less anxiety due to hearing loss. Retrospective questionnaires indicated that social distancing had a significant effect on the social network size, participant's personal image of themselves, and overall loneliness. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, EMA provided us with a glimpse of the effect that forced social isolation has had on the listening environments and psychosocial perspectives of a select number of CI listeners. CI participants in this study reported that they were spending more time at home in a quieter environments during-COVID. Contrary to our hypothesis, CI recipients overall felt less socially isolated and reported less anxiety resulting from their hearing difficulties during-COVID in comparison to pre-COVID. This, perhaps, implies that having a more controlled environment with fewer speakers provided a more relaxing listening experience.