MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2485774666 · doi:10.3766/jaaa.15115

Effects of Hearing Loss on Dual-Task Performance in an Audiovisual Virtual Reality Simulation of Listening While Walking

2016· article· en· W2485774666 on OpenAlexaff
Sin Tung Lau, M. Kathleen Pichora‐Fuller, Karen Li, Gurjit Singh, Jennifer L. Campos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaConcordia UniversityUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningHuman multitaskingAudiologyTask (project management)Computer sciencePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive psychologyMedicineCommunicationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Most activities of daily living require the dynamic integration of sights, sounds, and movements as people navigate complex environments. Nevertheless, little is known about the effects of hearing loss (HL) or hearing aid (HA) use on listening during multitasking challenges. PURPOSE: The objective of the current study was to investigate the effect of age-related hearing loss (ARHL) on word recognition accuracy in a dual-task experiment. Virtual reality (VR) technologies in a specialized laboratory (Challenging Environment Assessment Laboratory) were used to produce a controlled and safe simulated environment for listening while walking. RESEARCH DESIGN: In a simulation of a downtown street intersection, participants completed two single-task conditions, listening-only (standing stationary) and walking-only (walking on a treadmill to cross the simulated intersection with no speech presented), and a dual-task condition (listening while walking). For the listening task, they were required to recognize words spoken by a target talker when there was a competing talker. For some blocks of trials, the target talker was always located at 0° azimuth (100% probability condition); for other blocks, the target talker was more likely (60% of trials) to be located at the center (0° azimuth) and less likely (40% of trials) to be located at the left (270° azimuth). STUDY SAMPLE: The participants were eight older adults with bilateral HL (mean age = 73.3 yr, standard deviation [SD] = 8.4; three males) who wore their own HAs during testing and eight controls with normal hearing (NH) thresholds (mean age = 69.9 yr, SD = 5.4; two males). No participant had clinically significant visual, cognitive, or mobility impairments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Word recognition accuracy and kinematic parameters (head and trunk angles, step width and length, stride time, cadence) were analyzed using mixed factorial analysis of variances with group as a between-subjects factor. Task condition (single versus dual) and probability (100% versus 60%) were within-subject factors. In analyses of the 60% listening condition, spatial expectation (likely versus unlikely) was a within-subject factor. Differences between groups in age and baseline measures of hearing, mobility, and cognition were tested using t tests. RESULTS: The NH group had significantly better word recognition accuracy than the HL group. Both groups performed better when the probability was higher and the target location more likely. For word recognition, dual-task costs for the HL group did not depend on condition, whereas the NH group demonstrated a surprising dual-task benefit in conditions with lower probability or spatial expectation. For the kinematic parameters, both groups demonstrated a more upright and less variable head position and more variable trunk position during dual-task conditions compared to the walking-only condition, suggesting that safe walking was prioritized. The HL group demonstrated more overall stride time variability than the NH group. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new knowledge about the effects of ARHL, HA use, and aging on word recognition when individuals also perform a mobility-related task that is typically experienced in everyday life. This research may help inform the development of more effective function-based approaches to assessment and intervention for people who are hard-of-hearing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of AudiologySame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207