Vestibular Perceptual Thresholds in Older Adults With and Without Age-related Hearing Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Older adults with age-related hearing loss (ARHL) are at greater risk of falling and have greater mobility problems than older adults with normal hearing (NH). The underlying cause of these associations remains unclear. One possible reason is that age-related declines in the vestibular system could parallel those observed in the auditory system within the same individuals. Here, we compare the sensitivity of vestibular perceptual abilities (psychophysics), vestibular end-organ functioning (vestibular evoked myogenic potentials and video head impulse tests), and standing balance (posturography) in healthy older adults with and without ARHL. DESIGN: A total of 46 community-dwelling older adults, 23 with ARHL and 23 with NH, were passively translated in heave (up and down) and rotated in pitch (tilted forward and backward) in the dark using a motion platform. Using an adaptive staircase psychophysical procedure, participants' heave and pitch detection and discrimination thresholds were determined. In a posturography task, participants' center of pressure (COP) path length was measured as they stood on a forceplate with eyes open and closed, on firm and compliant surfaces, with and without sound suppression. Baseline motor, cognitive, and sensory functioning, including vestibular end-organ function, were measured. RESULTS: Individuals with ARHL were less sensitive at discriminating pitch movements compared to older adults with NH. Poorer self-reported hearing abilities were also associated with poorer pitch discrimination. In addition to pitch discrimination thresholds, lower pitch detection thresholds were significantly associated with hearing loss in the low-frequency range. Less stable standing balance was significantly associated with poorer vestibular perceptual sensitivity. DISCUSSION: These findings provide evidence for an association between ARHL and reduced vestibular perceptual sensitivity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".