The widespread use of face coverings during the COVID-19 pandemic has created communication challenges for many individuals, particularly for those who are deaf or hard of hearing and for those who must speak through masks in suboptimal conditions. This study includes some newer mask options as well as transparent masks to help those who depend on lipreading and other facial cues. The results corroborate earlier published results for non-transparent masks, but transparent options have greater attenuation, resonant peaks, and deflect sounds in ways that non-transparent masks do not. Although transparent face coverings have poorer acoustic performance, the presence of visual cues remains important for both verbal and non-verbal communication. Fortunately, there are creative solutions and technologies available to overcome audio and/or visual barriers caused by face coverings.

Purpose: This article explores the potential of using ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence–powered chatbot, as a tool to teach plain language writing to students in communication sciences and disorders (CSD). It addresses the importance of plain language writing in health care communication and identifies the challenges faced by graduate students in adopting plain language writing. Conclusions: Integrating ChatGPT into CSD education can empower students to develop effective plain language writing skills, with the potential of ultimately improving their communication skills and patient outcomes. The article highlights the potential positive impact of ChatGPT on clinical documentation and health communication, emphasizing the potential to enhance accuracy, consistency, productivity, efficiency, and language accessibility. While considering the limitations and ethical considerations of ChatGPT, the article concludes by emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that combines ChatGPT technology with human instruction to ensure responsible utilization and promote student competency in plain language writing.

Although there is a strong trend of satisfaction with hearing aids, recent consumer surveys indicate that there are still challenges with understanding speech in background noise and low penetration of wireless technologies using many modern-day communication and audio devices, such as smartphones, tablets, and computers. For some listening and communication settings, many patients could benefit from assistive technology that exceeds the capabilities of their hearing aids. When patients are not wearing their hearing aids, such as during sleep, concerns about environmental awareness and safety begin to arise. This article describes some current assistive technologies and accessories that facilitate accessibility to other devices and to satisfy the patient's listening and communication needs.

Purpose: The use of traditional (i.e., unmodified) listening scopes for hearing aid and assistive listening device checks is not practically accessible for all clinicians; such is the case for deaf audiologists. Despite the need, there is a paucity of evidence-based information regarding modified listening scopes. The focus of this investigation was to evaluate the output clarity through various modified listening scopes via a measure of distortion. The impact of hearing aid type on measurements was also preliminarily analyzed. Method: Eight test hearing aids were measured under seven listening scope conditions. A distortion analysis was performed for each setup across 13 frequencies from 250 through 4000 Hz on the Verifit2. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance with within-subject factors to establish internal consistency and agreement between measurements and identify any main effects. Results: Significant main effects of listening scope condition and frequency were observed. There were no effects of trials, suggesting data homogeneity and that hearing aid type did not impact measures. Post hoc analyses indicated that the modified scope utilizing Bluetooth technology generated the most significant distortion in the output of the tested hearing aid. Conversely, distortion from other scopes seems clinically negligible. Conclusion: The findings regarding output clarity of various modified listening scopes have clinical applications for those professionals who find traditional listening scopes practically inaccessible and seek to make evidence-based decisions about using modifications. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28323629

Background: Face masks are used in healthcare for the prevention of the spread of disease; however, the recent COVID-19 pandemic raised awareness of the challenges of typical opaque masks that obscure nonverbal cues. In addition, various masks have been shown to attenuate speech above 1000 Hz, and lack of nonverbal cues exacerbates speech understanding in the presence of background noise. Transparent masks can help to overcome the loss of nonverbal cues, but they have greater attenuative effects on higher speech frequencies. This study evaluated a newer prototype transparent face mask redesigned from a version evaluated in a previous study. Methods: Thirty participants (10 with normal hearing, 10 with moderate hearing loss, and 10 with severe-to-profound hearing loss) were recruited. Selected lists from the Connected Speech Test (CST) were digitally recorded using male and female talkers and presented to listeners at 65 dB HL in 12 conditions against a background of 4-talker babble (+5 dB SNR): without a mask (auditory only and audiovisual), with an opaque mask (auditory only and audiovisual), and with a transparent mask (auditory only and audiovisual). Results: Listeners with normal hearing performed consistently well across all conditions. For listeners with hearing loss, speech was generally easier to understand with the male talker. Audiovisual conditions were better than auditory-only conditions, and No Mask and Transparent Mask conditions were better than Opaque Mask conditions. Conclusions: These findings continue to support the use of transparent masks to improve communication, minimize medical errors, and increase patient satisfaction.

Purpose: Commercially available electronic stethoscopes for auscultation often report amplification levels and may or may not publish amplitude–frequency (spectral) response curves. Additional data may be helpful to consumers who use stethoscopes in less-than-ideal listening environments or have hearing loss. The purpose of this research was to describe our method for evaluating electronic stethoscopes relative to a nonelectronic stethoscope. Method: One nonelectronic and eight electronic stethoscopes at maximum volume with their bell and diaphragm modes were acoustically evaluated using digitized heart and breath sounds, a stethoscope speaker pad, and an industry-standard manikin ear simulator. Some electronic stethoscopes had wireless connectivity to wearable Bluetooth earbuds, and these were evaluated also. For each stethoscope, output measurements of digitized heart and breath sounds were recorded in a quiet room. For direct comparisons, measurements were categorized by expected spectra into heart (bell) sounds (~20–500 Hz) and breath (diaphragm) sounds (~100–1000 Hz). Results: Relative to published human threshold tone and 1/3-octave band data, as well as nonelectronic stethoscope output, all electronic stethoscopes clearly demonstrated some measure of amplification across the amplitude–frequency (spectral) range for digitized normal heart and breath sounds. Differences observed may be specific to bell versus diaphragm modes, acoustical tubing (or lack thereof), wired versus wireless modes, models within the same make, and use of active noise cancellation, to name a few. Importantly, manufacturer-reported amplification values (e.g., “×” specifications) did not reliably reflect frequency-specific acoustic output within clinically relevant heart and breath sound regions. Conclusions: The methodology described to analyze stethoscope outputs appears to be an effective starting point for evaluating various characteristics of stethoscopes with a lens toward assisting health professionals and students working in less-than-ideal listening situations or for those with hearing loss. While all electronic stethoscopes evaluated offered amplification, there was great variability in amplitude–frequency responses, which may help inform stethoscope selection based on listening needs, various listening environments, and/or degree and configuration of hearing loss.