Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.01.013 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.01.013 33608184!7885637!33608184     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=33608184&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215       J+Voice 2023 ; 37 (3): 468.e1-468.e12 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33608184|t=2023. Are Acoustic Markers of Voice and Speech Signals Affected by Nose-and-Mouth-Covering Respiratory Protective Masks?|pdf=|usr=}}{{33608184}} gab.com Text Are Acoustic Markers of Voice and Speech Signals Affected by Nose-and-Mouth-Covering Respiratory Protective Masks JO: J Voice http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33608184 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: Worldwide use of nose-and-mouth-covering respiratory protective mask (RPM) has become ubiquitous during COVID19 pandemic. Consequences of wearing RPMs, especially regarding perception and production of spoken communication, are gradually emerging. The present study explored how three prevalent RPMs affect various speech and voice sound properties. METHODS: Pre-recorded sustained [a] vowels and read sentences from 47 subjects were played by a speech production model ('Voice Emitted by Spare Parts', or 'VESPA') in four conditions: without RPM (C1), with disposable surgical mask (C2), with FFP2 mask (C3), and with transparent plastic mask (C4). Differences between C1 and masked conditions were assessed with Dunnett's t test in 26 speech sound properties related to voice production (fundamental frequency, sound intensity level), voice quality (jitter percent, shimmer percent, harmonics-to-noise ratio, smoothed cepstral peak prominence, Acoustic Voice Quality Index), articulation and resonance (first and second formant frequencies, first and second formant bandwidths, spectral center of gravity, spectral standard deviation, spectral skewness, spectral kurtosis, spectral slope, and spectral energy in ten 1-kHz bands from 0 to 10 kHz). RESULTS: C2, C3, and C4 significantly affected 10, 15, and 19 of the acoustic speech markers, respectively. Furthermore, absolute differences between unmasked and masked conditions were largest for C4 and smallest for C2. CONCLUSIONS: All RPMs influenced more or less speech sound properties. However, this influence was least for surgical RPMs and most for plastic RPMs. Surgical RPMs are therefore preferred when spoken communication is priority next to respiratory protection. Twit Text FOAVip Are Acoustic Markers of Voice and Speech Signals Affected by Nose-and-Mouth-Covering Respiratory Protective Masks ????J Voice http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33608184 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33608184 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33608184}}</ref> Are Acoustic Markers of Voice and Speech Signals Affected by Nose-and-Mouth-Covering Respiratory Protective Masks? #MMPMID33608184 Maryn Y; Wuyts FL; Zarowski A J Voice 2023[May]; 37 (3): 468.e1-468.e12 PMID33608184show ga BACKGROUND: Worldwide use of nose-and-mouth-covering respiratory protective mask (RPM) has become ubiquitous during COVID19 pandemic. Consequences of wearing RPMs, especially regarding perception and production of spoken communication, are gradually emerging. The present study explored how three prevalent RPMs affect various speech and voice sound properties. METHODS: Pre-recorded sustained [a] vowels and read sentences from 47 subjects were played by a speech production model ('Voice Emitted by Spare Parts', or 'VESPA') in four conditions: without RPM (C1), with disposable surgical mask (C2), with FFP2 mask (C3), and with transparent plastic mask (C4). Differences between C1 and masked conditions were assessed with Dunnett's t test in 26 speech sound properties related to voice production (fundamental frequency, sound intensity level), voice quality (jitter percent, shimmer percent, harmonics-to-noise ratio, smoothed cepstral peak prominence, Acoustic Voice Quality Index), articulation and resonance (first and second formant frequencies, first and second formant bandwidths, spectral center of gravity, spectral standard deviation, spectral skewness, spectral kurtosis, spectral slope, and spectral energy in ten 1-kHz bands from 0 to 10 kHz). RESULTS: C2, C3, and C4 significantly affected 10, 15, and 19 of the acoustic speech markers, respectively. Furthermore, absolute differences between unmasked and masked conditions were largest for C4 and smallest for C2. CONCLUSIONS: All RPMs influenced more or less speech sound properties. However, this influence was least for surgical RPMs and most for plastic RPMs. Surgical RPMs are therefore preferred when spoken communication is priority next to respiratory protection. |*COVID-19[MESH] |*Speech[MESH] |Acoustics[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Masks[MESH] |Speech Acoustics[MESH]Are Acoustic Markers of Voice and Speech Signals Affected by Nose-and(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing