The impact of cognitive-motor interference on balance and gait in hearing-impaired older adults: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Hearing impairments are a rising burden in our aging society. Hearing loss is associated with reduced cognitive performance as well as decrements in balance and gait. Therefore, impaired hearing affects also dual tasking (DT). The aim of this review is to summarize the evidence for DT performance decrements of older adults with hearing impairments during maintaining balance or walking. Methods The systematic literature research according to PRISMA guidelines was conducted using MEDLINE, APA Psych-Info, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were: Independent living older people ≥ 60 years with hearing impairments, use of a DT paradigm to test hearing impaired older adults within a balance or walking condition. Results N = 57 studies were found within the databases. Eight studies were included (N = 456 participants (58% women), including n = 200 older hearing-impaired persons with different levels of hearing loss). Most of the included studies oriented their inclusion criteria for hearing-impairments at thresholds for mild hearing loss with Pure Tone Average (0.5-4 kHz) ≥ 25 and < 40 dB. Three of the studies focused on DT balance performance and five used DT walking comparing participants with and without hearing loss. For DT balance and gait performance, higher decrements for the hearing-impaired group were observed compared to healthy older adults. Performance decrements were accompanied by reduced compensatory strategies in balance performance. Conclusion More pronounced decrements in DT performance were observed for participants with hearing impairments compared to those without. This implies that hearing-impaired older adults might need specific interventions to reduce the cognitive-motor interference (CMI) to maintain balance control or walking stability in daily situations that require managing of cognitive and motor tasks simultaneously. However, taking all results into account the underlying mechanisms of CMI for this target group needs to be further examined. Trial registration This review was registered at Prospero with the ID CRD42022340232.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".