Comparison of subjective self-reported hearing and objective speech-in-noise perception as predictors of social isolation and loneliness in adults 60 years and older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hearing decline in ageing increases the risk of loneliness and social isolation. This correlation is most often observed when hearing is measured by subjective self-report, and less often for objectively measured speech listening ability, raising questions about differences between self-assessments and behavioural performance. This study compared self-reported hearing ability and objective speech-in-noise performance as predictors of loneliness and social isolation in adults older than 60. DESIGN: This was an observational, cross-sectional online study. Participants were instructed to complete a speech-in-noise task to measure objective listening ability, as well as four questionnaires that measured subjective self-rated hearing, feelings of loneliness, perceived social support, and depression and anxiety. STUDY SAMPLE: One-hundred fifteen individuals aged above 60 with no treated hearing loss. RESULTS: No correlation was found between loneliness scores and subjective self-rated hearing or objective speech-in-noise perception after adjusting demographic variables and overall psychological distress (anxiety and depression). However, self-rated hearing was positively correlated with social support when anxiety/depression scores were low. When anxiety/depression scores were high, this relationship was attenuated. Objective speech-in-noise perception did not correlate with perceived social support. CONCLUSIONS: Self-rated hearing ability positively predicts ratings of social support in older adults with low levels of psychological distress.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".