Subjective Impact of Age-Related Hearing Loss Is Worse for Those Who Routinely Experience Boredom and Failures of Attention
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: Despite extensive evidence supporting the benefits of hearing treatments for individuals affected by hearing loss, many leave their hearing issues unaddressed. This underscores the need to better understand the individual factors influencing decision-making regarding hearing loss treatments. One consideration regarding the low uptake of treatment is the finding that the subjective impact of hearing loss is greater for some individuals than for others, yielding a significant discrepancy between subjective measures of hearing loss (e.g., self-report hearing-handicap scales) and objective audiometric assessments (e.g., audiograms). The current study seeks to elucidate some of the cognitive-affective factors that give rise to these individual differences in the subjective impact of hearing loss. Specifically, we hypothesized that a stronger trait tendency to experience boredom would be correlated with more intensely negative experiences of hearing-related issues, and that this relationship would be mediated by underlying attentional difficulties. METHODS: Through a partnership with hearing care clinics (Connect Hearing Canada), we recruited a large sample of older adults (n = 1840) through their network of hearing-care clinics. Audiometric thresholds provided an objective measure of hearing ability for each participant, while self-report questionnaires assessed individual differences in the subjective impact of hearing-related issues (hearing handicap), subjective strain experienced when listening (listening effort), tendency to experience boredom, tendency to experience difficulty maintaining task-focused attention (mind-wandering), and self-perceived level of cognitive functioning. RESULTS: The subjective impact of hearing loss-both in terms of hearing handicap and strain when listening-was found to be more intensely negative for those who are characteristically more susceptible to experiencing boredom, and this relationship was shown to be mediated by self-reported differences in the ability to maintain task-focused attention. This relationship between trait boredom proneness and the subjective impact of hearing-related issues was evident across all levels of objective hearing abilities. Moreover, there was no evidence that the subjective impact of hearing loss is worse for those who routinely experience boredom because of objectively-poorer hearing abilities in those individuals. CONCLUSIONS: A greater trait susceptibility to experiencing boredom was associated with a more aversive subjective experience of hearing loss, and this relationship is mediated by attentional difficulties. This is a novel discovery regarding the cognitive-affective factors that are linked to individual differences in the effect that hearing loss has on individuals' daily functioning. These results may be helpful for better understanding the determinants of hearing-rehabilitation decisions and how to improve the uptake of treatments for hearing loss. The observational nature of the current study restricts us from drawing any definitive conclusions about the casual directions among the factors being investigated. Further research is therefore needed to establish how individual differences in the characteristic tendency to experience boredom are related to attentional-control difficulties and the experience of hearing-related issues. More research is also required to determine how all of these factors may influence decisions regarding hearing-loss treatments.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».