Hearing and visual acuity predict cognitive function in adults aged 45–85 years: Findings from the baseline wave of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Associations between sensory status and cognitive performance are now widely reported. However, important open questions remain, including whether the associations are similar across sensory modalities, whether sensory status predicts cognitive performance independent of the cognitive task modality, and whether demographic/health variables moderate these associations. We examined data from a population sample of 30,029 Canadians aged 45-85 (the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging). Hearing was measured as the better ear pure-tone threshold average and vision as the better-eye pinhole-corrected visual acuity. Controlling for age, education, sex, multilingual status, and the other sensory modality, participants with poorer hearing had poorer auditory verbal learning and memory (Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test) and executive function (Stroop, phonemic and semantic oral fluency, mental alternation) and those with poorer vision had poorer executive function. The sensory-cognitive associations were largely independent of the modality of test administration. The association between hearing loss and executive function was greater for persons who were older and those who had more health conditions. The association between vision loss and executive function was greater for persons with less than secondary school education. This study is one of the few that considers hearing and vision jointly, allowing us to compare the independent effects of each sensory modality on cognition and to express those effects as age equivalencies. This work demonstrates that hearing and vision are independently associated with cognitive performance in middle-aged to older aged adults (over-and-above key demographic variables) and independent of test modality. Executive functions appear to be particularly sensitive to associations between sensory function and demographic and health variables. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".