Auditory-cognitive Associations in Older Adults: Differential Effects \nof Sex, Test Modality, and Hearing Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Auditory-cognitive associations in older adults: Differential effects of sex, test modality, and hearing measures \n \nFaisal Al-Yawer, Ph.D. \nConcordia University, 2022 \n \nThis dissertation presents findings that address auditory-cognitive associations in older adults with hearing loss (HL), particularly with regards to sex-related differences in said associations. \nManuscript I (Chapter 2) reports the psychometric properties of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale (MoCA) when hearing-related items are excluded from scoring (MoCAModified). This involved a cross-sectional analysis of the original MoCA validation study data in healthy older adults, older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and older adults with mild Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Our findings showed that, compared to the original MoCA, MCI sensitivity was substantially reduced when all auditory subtests were omitted, with the biggest contribution to the reduction coming from the delayed recall subtest. This Chapter highlights the \ncontribution that hearing-dependent subtests have on the accuracy of the MoCA. \nManuscript II (Chapter 3) examines sex-related differences in the associations between MoCA scores and pure-tone average (PTA) in healthy older adults. MoCA-Modified scores were also \ncalculated for all participants to assess the contribution of hearing-dependent items. Results showed that women with normal hearing were more likely to pass the MoCA compared to their counterparts with HL. In contrast, no associations were observed in men. Regression analysis showed an interaction between sex and PTA in the worse ear. PTAs were significantly correlated with both MoCA and MoCA-Modified scores in women, but not in men. This suggests significant sex-related differences in auditory-cognitive associations even when hearing-related test items are omitted. \nManuscript III (Chapter 4) examines sex-related differences in auditory-cognitive associations in a sample of individuals with MCI. In this cross-sectional analysis, we examined sex-related \ndifferences in hearing, as measured by both PTA and the Canadian Digit Triplet Test (CDTT), and cognition, as measured by the MoCA, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning (RAVLT), and the \nBrief Visuospatial memory test (BVMT-R). Women with better hearing on either measure outperformed their worse hearing counterparts on the MoCA. Women with normal hearing \nshowed correlations between CDTT SRTs and MoCA and RAVLT scores. Men but not women showed an effect of hearing on the BVMT-R. Generally, this dissertation points to the existence of sex-related differences in auditory-cognitive associations and discusses potential mechanisms that underly these observations, including the common cause and information degradation hypotheses.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".