SLPPilotInternational journal of speech-language pathology2024

Using a novel in-mask non-invasive ventilator microphone to improve talker intelligibility in healthy and hospitalised adults.

Elizabeth D Young, Sarah Hargus Ferguson, Lara M Brewer and 3 others

PMID 37837223

WHAT IT FOUND

The prototype showed no overall intelligibility benefit in healthy talkers.

In ICU patients, the updated microphone improved number intelligibility and comprehensibility, but speech was not rated more natural.

Key findings

01The prototype did not show an overall intelligibility benefit in healthy talkers.

02In ICU patients, number intelligibility was 65% correct with the microphone off and 82% correct with it on.

03Comprehensibility ratings increased by about 15 points on a 100-point scale with the microphone on, but naturalness ratings did not improve overall.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study used only five healthy volunteers and eight ICU patients, so it is too small to show how most ventilated patients would respond. The patients were awake, medically stable, and on relatively low ventilator pressures, so it says little about more severely ill patients or higher-pressure NIV. The samples were demographically and clinically narrow, with uneven gender representation. The prototype did not improve overall intelligibility in healthy talkers and affected male and female talkers differently. Naturalness was low in both conditions, so better understanding did not mean speech sounded natural. The device was tested with specific NIV masks and ventilators, so results may not transfer to other units or devices.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the patient pilot as proof the microphone makes ventilated speech sound natural. Naturalness was not improved overall, and the study was too small to show how most ventilated patients would respond.

Read it on PubMed →