Age-Related Hearing Loss, Cognitive Decline, and Social Interaction: Testing a Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Aging increases risk for hearing loss, cognitive decline, and social isolation; however, the nature of their interconnection remains unclear. This study examined the interplay between age-related hearing loss, cognitive decline, and social isolation in adults by testing the ability to understand speech in background noise, a challenge frequently reported by many older adults. METHOD: = 51 years) recruited as part of the Aging Brain Cohort at the University of South Carolina repository. The participants underwent testing for hearing, cognition, and social interaction, which included pure-tone audiometry, a words-in-noise (WIN) test, a hearing questionnaire (Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale [SSQ12]), a social questionnaire (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-57 Social), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. We used a single pure-tone average (PTA) threshold value and a single WIN threshold value for each participant because there were no differences on average between the left and right ears. RESULTS: Poorer hearing was significantly associated with cognitive decline, through both PTA and WIN thresholds, with a stronger association observed for WIN threshold. Adults with poorer hearing also exhibited greater social isolation, as evidenced by their WIN threshold and SSQ12 score, although not through PTA. This connection was more pronounced with the WIN threshold than with the SSQ12 score. Cognition was not related to social isolation, suggesting that social isolation is affected more by the ability to understand words in noise than by cognition in a nondemented population. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding speech in challenging auditory environments rather than mere threshold detection is strongly linked to social isolation and cognitive decline. Thus, inclusion of a word-recognition-in-noise test and a social isolation survey in clinical settings is warranted. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26237060.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".