Hearing Aid Usage and Its Influence on Cognitive Functions Among Older Adults with Age-Related Hearing Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The current study aimed to analyze the cognitive skills of older adults with age-related hearing loss and the difference in cognitive functions between hearing aid users and non-users among older adults with age-related hearing loss using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Method: A total of 90 subjects participated in the study, the control group had 30 normally hearing older individuals, the unaided group had 30 older individuals with hearing loss who were non-users of hearing aids, and the aided group had 30 older individuals with hearing loss who are hearing aid users for more than 2 years. They were further divided into three sub-groups namely Group A:55-60 years, Group B:61-65 years, and Group C: 66-70 years. MoCA is a brief and rapid screening instrument for mild cognitive dysfunction that assesses various cognitive domains like naming, memory, etc. MoCA was administered to all the participants and the results were analysed. Results: The results indicated that normal-hearing participants had better cognitive scores compared to hearing-impaired individuals. Among the hearing-impaired group, the hearing aid users performed better on cognitive tasks as compared to the non-users which indicated the good impact of hearing aids on cognitive-based skills in the older age. Among the cognitive tasks, it was found that the ‘delayed recall’ task was difficult for all three groups. Conclusion: Hearing aids have a positive influence on the cognition of older adults with age-related hearing loss. It is important to incorporate cognitive tasks during the rehabilitation of older adults with hearing loss. Key words: Cognitive functions, age-related hearing loss, older adults, MoCA, hearing aids
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".