Oral communicafon (Voice) ergonomic work in Iceland. What we have ...

Oral communica,on (Voice) ergonomic work in Iceland. What we have done and what is the need?

Valdís Ingibjörg JónsdóCr PhD Voice pathologist Ráðstefna í Reykjavik 12 og 13 Oct.2012

ValdísIngibjörg JónsdóCr PhD

Icelandic reality When it comes to reverbera,on there is understanding that acous,cs needs to be good. However this is not the case for ac,vity noise generated in rooms as a result of the daily ac,vity.

Ráðstefna í Reykjavik 12 og 13 Oct.2012


First Mee,ng of Nordic Voice Ergonomic Group Reykjavik 7.-‐8.5.2006 STATEMENT

• Background • The goal of the present mee,ng was to discuss a common future view on the legisla:on for preven:ng disturbance in speech communica:on for the benefit of adults and children. Voice experts from the five Nordic countries par,cipated in the mee,ng. •  • Many persons in modern society suffer from voice disorders due to environmental factors. Voice disorders are increasing because of increasing noise exposure and increasing vocal loading. Speech communica:on deteriorates in such condi:ons. •  • Voice ergonomics deals with all the measures that: increase performance in speech communica:on, decrease risk for voice disorder and enable recovery from a voice disorder. •  • A number of risk factors for voice disorder have been specified in several reports; background noise, poor acous,cs, working posture, poor indoor air quality, dura,on of voice usage and speaking distance. Ráðstefna í Reykjavik 12 og 13 Oct.2012


Statement cont. •  Legislation for occupational safety and health related to speech communication differs in Nordic countries. The focus of this legislation does not specifically deal with risks for voice disorders/speech communication at all. •  The noise exposure impact on hearing is however well understood and the rules are applied in practice. The same ought to be done within the field of voice and speech communication. Recent research, not least in Nordic countries, provides information on how to protect the voice against environmental risks and prevent voice disorders. •  •  Legislation (given in the table) exists for example on acoustics in ordinary classrooms, whereas background noise due to activity is not considered at all although it is a crucial factor for speech communication. Ráðstefna í Reykjavik 12 og 13 Oct.2012


Statement cont.



Communication policy

Factors that are not taken into account include:

•  Noise •  Humidity •  Heat •  Number of individuals in rooms •  Distance between the listener and the speakertalker



The professional voice needs beneficial environment because: •  Limitation of voice to carry. According to ISO 9921-1 (1996) at the distance of 1 meter the maximum A -weighted sound level (dB (A)) is 90 dB. •  Inverse square law. Causing the sound level in the voice to decrease by distance. •  Lombard effect. Causing the teacher to strain his/her voice by increasing SPL.



Present Situation Considerable number of voice users suffer from voice problems rooted either in the nature of the job or unsuitable circumstances in work places No OHS legislation protects the voice as occupational tool at least in the Nordic countries Ráðstefna í Reykjavik 12 og 13 Oct.2012


Limitation of successful hearing for students •  Hearing problems

–  25% -30% of young children in kindergarten and first grade will not be able to hear normally on any given day (Leventhall, 1998) –  13% of a representative sample of children between the age of 6 and 19 had high frequency hearing loss and 7% low frequency loss of 60 dB or more. (ASHA,1995).

•  Underdeveloped hearing ability

–  Child does not generally reach adult-like performance on recognition tasks in noise or reverberation until approximately 13-15 years of age; in particular, the ability to identify consonants in such conditions may not mature until late teenage years (Johnson et al., 2000).

•  •  •  • 

Language disorders Development disabilities Learning disabilities Bilingual



NB. Schools are not mentioned in these Icelandic OHSW legislations •  In communication towers, supervision areas and places where it is imperative that conversation should be clearly audible, it should be the aim to reduce noise pollution to 65 dB(A) equivalent noise or lower for an 8 hour day. •  In canteens and staffrooms this should not exceed 60 dB(A) equivalent noise over the period during which the premises are being used. •  In offices and other places where important discussion sessions are conducted or a high degree of concentration is required the equivalent noise should be no more than 50 dB(A) for an 8 hour day.

Up until now there is no reference whatsoever in building regulations to ensure that the spoken word can be heard. Ráðstefna í Reykjavik 12 og 13 Oct.2012


According to measurements noise in pre – schools and sports - halls is above levels considered to be dangerous for hearing and far above levels considered to be acceptable for concentration and communication •  26 teachers from 5 preschools carried a loud-meter on their shoulders for 8 hours. Out of 26 measurements 16 were higher than 80 dB. The average was 81 dB (71,6 dB – 98 dB) •  Same method used when noise was measured on 5 sport teachers in 5 different sports-halls •  All measurements showed noise level above 80dB (80,6 – 88,6). Ráðstefna í Reykjavik 12 og 13 Oct.2012


We need changes •  Still noise exposure as an impact on hearing is measured but not when it comes to voice and speech communication. •  Voice is not – yet – recognized as a working tool. •  Schools are not mentioned in OHSW legislation for places where it is imperative that conversation should be clearly audible. Ráðstefna í Reykjavik 12 og 13 Oct.2012


What has been done in Iceland in the field of communica:on (voice) ergonomics last 10 years. A) Several research on teachers´ voices –  Objec,ve

•  Measurements from tape recordings

– Subjec,ve How teachers experience their vocal symptoms

B) Research on acous,cs C) Research on noise –  Objec,ve

•  Measurements with meters

–  Subjec,ve

•  Opinion on noise



What do we have in Iceland? •  Data on teachers´ voices and their opinion on their working environment. These results are comparable to results elsewhere from showing that teachers have voice problems and the working environment is not beneficial for voice use nor hearing. From the teachers´ replies we have information how to improve the situation •  More understanding on voice and voice use when it comes to the individual professional voice user Ráðstefna í Reykjavik 12 og 13 Oct.2012


Examples of results



Connection between environment and voice: Those teachers who complained about bad acoustics in the classroom complained about: Correlation

Dryness in the throat

(p