Music Therapy Outcomes in Older Adults Using Cochlear Implants, Hearing Aids, or Combined Bimodal Devices: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Cochlear implants (CIs) and hearing aids (HAs) have enhanced auditory rehabilitation in elderly individuals, yet limitations in musical perception and psychosocial integration persist. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of music therapy (MT) on the quality of life (QoL), self-esteem, auditory perception, and cognition in older CI and HA users. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed was conducted up to March 2022 following PRISMA guidelines. Studies involving participants aged ≥ 60 years with CIs and/or HAs were included. Ten studies (n = 21,632) met eligibility criteria. Data were extracted and assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: MT led to improved sound quality, with HISQUI19 scores rising from 60.0 ± 21.8 to 74.2 ± 27.5. Early MT exposure was associated with significantly better MUMU outcomes (p = 0.02). Bilateral CI users showed enhanced stereo detection (52% to 86%), and CI + HA users achieved CNC scores exceeding 95%. Postlingual CI users outperformed prelingual peers in musical discrimination (9.81 vs. 3.48; p < 0.001). Long-term HA use was linked to better a QoL and reduced loneliness. Conclusions: While music therapy appears to support auditory and psychosocial functioning in hearing-impaired older adults, the absence of randomized controlled trials limits causal inference regarding its effects. These results support its integration into hearing rehabilitation strategies for older adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".