Associations Between Measures of Auditory Function and Brief Assessments of Cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The two primary purposes of this report are (a) to compare the results of three brief cognitive screens in older adults and (b) to examine associations between performance on each of the screens and auditory function measured either concurrently or 9 years earlier. Method This was a prospective longitudinal study of 98 adults (66 women) with baseline ages ranging from 40 to 85 years. The mean interval between T1 baseline and T2 follow-up measurements was 8.8 years with a range from 7 to 11 years. Measures of hearing threshold, gap detection, and auditory temporal-order identification were completed at T1 and T2. The Mini-Mental State Examination was completed at T1 and T2, whereas the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and A Quick Test were completed at T2 only. Results Higher scores and pass rates were obtained for the Mini-Mental State Examination than for the MoCA or the A Quick Test. The measures were moderately correlated among themselves and with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition. Significant associations emerged frequently between auditory and cognitive functions, most often for the auditory measure of temporal-order identification, including dichotic measures of this ability. Conclusions From this evaluation, the MoCA emerged as the preferred test for clinicians desiring a quick assessment of the cognitive function of their older patients. Auditory temporal-order identification is associated with cognitive function and explains about 10%-20% of the variation in cognitive function independent of age and hearing loss. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12986021.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".