The Effects of Age and Hearing Loss on Dual-Task Balance and Listening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Among older adults (OA), hearing loss is associated with an increased risk for falls. The aim of the present study was to experimentally investigate the cognitive compensation hypothesis, wherein decreased auditory and motor functioning are compensated by the recruitment of cognitive resources. Method: Twenty-nine younger adults (YA), 26 OA, and 32 OA with age-related hearing loss (ARHL) completed a dual-task paradigm consisting of cognitive and balance recovery tasks performed singly and concurrently. The auditory stimuli were presented with or without background noise. Results: Both older adult groups performed significantly worse than YA on the cognitive task in noisy conditions and ARHL also demonstrated disproportionate negative effects of dual-tasking and noise. The kinematic data indicated that OA and ARHL demonstrated greater plantarflexion when compared with YA. Conversely, YA showed greater hip extension in response to dual-tasking. Discussion: The cognitive and balance results suggest that YA were able to flexibly allocate their attention between tasks, whereas ARHL exhibited prioritization of posture over cognitive performance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".