Effects of executive function training on balance and auditory-cognitive dual-task performance in adults with and without hearing loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multitasking, such as listening while balancing, relies on integrated processing in the sensory, cognitive, and motor systems; systems that often decline with age. Hearing loss is linked to increased risks of both falls and cognitive decline. Improving cognitive processing through executive function (EF) training may support balance, especially in older adults with hearing loss. This randomized controlled study conducted across age groups and hearing abilities, examined the effects of a 12-week EF training program on postural outcomes (center of pressure (COP)) using an auditory-cognitive-postural dual-task paradigm. METHODS: Sixty-five participants including middle-aged adults with normal hearing (MA; n = 19), older adults with normal hearing (OA; n = 23), and older adults with hearing loss who used hearing aids (OAHL; n = 23) were randomly assigned within each age group to an EF training condition or a control condition. Primary outcome measures were auditory-cognitive reaction time on an auditory 2-back working memory task and postural measures (COP path length variability), which were collected in single- and dual-task conditions. Secondary analyses examined whether sensory, cognitive, and mobility performance, as evaluated by baseline standardized assessments, predicted training-related outcomes. RESULTS: Across MA, OA, and OAHL groups, cognitive performance generally improved following EF training and transfer of these training effects were observed during experimental postural tasks and auditory-cognitive tasks, but differed depending on age, pure-tone hearing thresholds, and cognitive abilities. Specifically, for postural outcomes, performance improved after training, but only for older adults with better hearing, while those with poorer hearing at any age did not improve. For auditory-cognitive task performance, older adults with the poorest hearing and cognition benefited the most from training. CONCLUSIONS: EF training may support balance and cognition in older adults, although its benefits for balance may be limited by severe hearing loss, underscoring the value of early intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry Name: ClinicalTrials.gov. Registration/Trial number: NCT05418998. Trial URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05418998.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".