Impact of hearing loss and amplification on performance on a cognitive screening test

Gabrielle Saunders, Ian Odgear, Anna Cosgrove, Melissa T. Frederick

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: There have been numerous recent reports on the association between hearing impairment and cognitive function, such that the cognition of adults with hearing loss is poorer relative to the cognition of adults with normal hearing (NH), even when amplification is used. However, it is not clear the extent to which this is testing artifact due to the individual with hearing loss being unable to accurately hear the test stimuli. Purpose: The primary purpose of this study was to examine whether use of amplification during cognitive screening with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) improves performance on the MoCA. Secondarily, we investigated the effects of hearing ability on MoCA performance, by comparing the performance of individuals with and without hearing impairment. Study Sample: Participants were 42 individuals with hearing impairment and 19 individuals with NH. Of the individuals with hearing impairment, 22 routinely used hearing aids; 20 did not use hearing aids. Data Collection and Analysis: Following a written informec consent process, all participants completed pure tone audiometry, speech testing in quiet (Maryland consonant-nucleus-consonant [CNC] words) and in noise (Quick Speech in Noise [QuickSIN] test), and the MoCA. The speech testing and MoCA were completed twice. Individuals with hearing impairment completed testing once unaided and once with amplification, whereas individuals with NH completed unaided testing twice. Results: The individuals with hearing impairment performed significantly less well on the MoCA than those without hearing impairment for unaided testing, and the use of amplification did not significantly change performance. This is despite the finding that amplification significantly improved the performance of the hearing aid users on the measures of speech in quiet and speech in noise. Furthermore, there were strong correlations between MoCA score and the four frequency pure tone average, Maryland CNC score and QuickSIN, which remain moderate to strong when the analyses were adjusted for age. Conclusions: It is concluded that the individuals with hearing loss here performed less well on the MoCA than individuals with NH and that the use of amplification did not compensate for this performance deficit. Nonetheless, this should not be taken to suggest the use of amplification during testing is unnecessary because it might be that other unmeasured factors, such as effort required to perform or fatigue, were decreased with the use of amplification.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)648-655
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the American Academy of Audiology
Volume29
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2018

Fingerprint

Hearing Loss
Hearing
Hearing Aids
Noise
Cognition
Pure-Tone Audiometry
Aptitude
Artifacts
Fatigue

Keywords

  • Amplification
  • Cognition
  • Hearing aids
  • Hearing loss

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

Impact of hearing loss and amplification on performance on a cognitive screening test. / Saunders, Gabrielle; Odgear, Ian; Cosgrove, Anna; Frederick, Melissa T.

In: Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, Vol. 29, No. 7, 01.07.2018, p. 648-655.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Saunders, Gabrielle ; Odgear, Ian ; Cosgrove, Anna ; Frederick, Melissa T. / Impact of hearing loss and amplification on performance on a cognitive screening test. In: Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2018 ; Vol. 29, No. 7. pp. 648-655.
@article{253ad198cdb2425182d8b6b0ecd7cc8c,
title = "Impact of hearing loss and amplification on performance on a cognitive screening test",
abstract = "Background: There have been numerous recent reports on the association between hearing impairment and cognitive function, such that the cognition of adults with hearing loss is poorer relative to the cognition of adults with normal hearing (NH), even when amplification is used. However, it is not clear the extent to which this is testing artifact due to the individual with hearing loss being unable to accurately hear the test stimuli. Purpose: The primary purpose of this study was to examine whether use of amplification during cognitive screening with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) improves performance on the MoCA. Secondarily, we investigated the effects of hearing ability on MoCA performance, by comparing the performance of individuals with and without hearing impairment. Study Sample: Participants were 42 individuals with hearing impairment and 19 individuals with NH. Of the individuals with hearing impairment, 22 routinely used hearing aids; 20 did not use hearing aids. Data Collection and Analysis: Following a written informec consent process, all participants completed pure tone audiometry, speech testing in quiet (Maryland consonant-nucleus-consonant [CNC] words) and in noise (Quick Speech in Noise [QuickSIN] test), and the MoCA. The speech testing and MoCA were completed twice. Individuals with hearing impairment completed testing once unaided and once with amplification, whereas individuals with NH completed unaided testing twice. Results: The individuals with hearing impairment performed significantly less well on the MoCA than those without hearing impairment for unaided testing, and the use of amplification did not significantly change performance. This is despite the finding that amplification significantly improved the performance of the hearing aid users on the measures of speech in quiet and speech in noise. Furthermore, there were strong correlations between MoCA score and the four frequency pure tone average, Maryland CNC score and QuickSIN, which remain moderate to strong when the analyses were adjusted for age. Conclusions: It is concluded that the individuals with hearing loss here performed less well on the MoCA than individuals with NH and that the use of amplification did not compensate for this performance deficit. Nonetheless, this should not be taken to suggest the use of amplification during testing is unnecessary because it might be that other unmeasured factors, such as effort required to perform or fatigue, were decreased with the use of amplification.",
keywords = "Amplification, Cognition, Hearing aids, Hearing loss",
author = "Gabrielle Saunders and Ian Odgear and Anna Cosgrove and Frederick, {Melissa T.}",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3766/jaaa.17044",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "648--655",
journal = "Journal of the American Academy of Audiology",
issn = "1050-0545",
publisher = "American Academy of Audiology",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact of hearing loss and amplification on performance on a cognitive screening test

AU - Saunders, Gabrielle

AU - Odgear, Ian

AU - Cosgrove, Anna

AU - Frederick, Melissa T.

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - Background: There have been numerous recent reports on the association between hearing impairment and cognitive function, such that the cognition of adults with hearing loss is poorer relative to the cognition of adults with normal hearing (NH), even when amplification is used. However, it is not clear the extent to which this is testing artifact due to the individual with hearing loss being unable to accurately hear the test stimuli. Purpose: The primary purpose of this study was to examine whether use of amplification during cognitive screening with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) improves performance on the MoCA. Secondarily, we investigated the effects of hearing ability on MoCA performance, by comparing the performance of individuals with and without hearing impairment. Study Sample: Participants were 42 individuals with hearing impairment and 19 individuals with NH. Of the individuals with hearing impairment, 22 routinely used hearing aids; 20 did not use hearing aids. Data Collection and Analysis: Following a written informec consent process, all participants completed pure tone audiometry, speech testing in quiet (Maryland consonant-nucleus-consonant [CNC] words) and in noise (Quick Speech in Noise [QuickSIN] test), and the MoCA. The speech testing and MoCA were completed twice. Individuals with hearing impairment completed testing once unaided and once with amplification, whereas individuals with NH completed unaided testing twice. Results: The individuals with hearing impairment performed significantly less well on the MoCA than those without hearing impairment for unaided testing, and the use of amplification did not significantly change performance. This is despite the finding that amplification significantly improved the performance of the hearing aid users on the measures of speech in quiet and speech in noise. Furthermore, there were strong correlations between MoCA score and the four frequency pure tone average, Maryland CNC score and QuickSIN, which remain moderate to strong when the analyses were adjusted for age. Conclusions: It is concluded that the individuals with hearing loss here performed less well on the MoCA than individuals with NH and that the use of amplification did not compensate for this performance deficit. Nonetheless, this should not be taken to suggest the use of amplification during testing is unnecessary because it might be that other unmeasured factors, such as effort required to perform or fatigue, were decreased with the use of amplification.

AB - Background: There have been numerous recent reports on the association between hearing impairment and cognitive function, such that the cognition of adults with hearing loss is poorer relative to the cognition of adults with normal hearing (NH), even when amplification is used. However, it is not clear the extent to which this is testing artifact due to the individual with hearing loss being unable to accurately hear the test stimuli. Purpose: The primary purpose of this study was to examine whether use of amplification during cognitive screening with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) improves performance on the MoCA. Secondarily, we investigated the effects of hearing ability on MoCA performance, by comparing the performance of individuals with and without hearing impairment. Study Sample: Participants were 42 individuals with hearing impairment and 19 individuals with NH. Of the individuals with hearing impairment, 22 routinely used hearing aids; 20 did not use hearing aids. Data Collection and Analysis: Following a written informec consent process, all participants completed pure tone audiometry, speech testing in quiet (Maryland consonant-nucleus-consonant [CNC] words) and in noise (Quick Speech in Noise [QuickSIN] test), and the MoCA. The speech testing and MoCA were completed twice. Individuals with hearing impairment completed testing once unaided and once with amplification, whereas individuals with NH completed unaided testing twice. Results: The individuals with hearing impairment performed significantly less well on the MoCA than those without hearing impairment for unaided testing, and the use of amplification did not significantly change performance. This is despite the finding that amplification significantly improved the performance of the hearing aid users on the measures of speech in quiet and speech in noise. Furthermore, there were strong correlations between MoCA score and the four frequency pure tone average, Maryland CNC score and QuickSIN, which remain moderate to strong when the analyses were adjusted for age. Conclusions: It is concluded that the individuals with hearing loss here performed less well on the MoCA than individuals with NH and that the use of amplification did not compensate for this performance deficit. Nonetheless, this should not be taken to suggest the use of amplification during testing is unnecessary because it might be that other unmeasured factors, such as effort required to perform or fatigue, were decreased with the use of amplification.

KW - Amplification

KW - Cognition

KW - Hearing aids

KW - Hearing loss

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050347010&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85050347010&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3766/jaaa.17044

DO - 10.3766/jaaa.17044

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 648

EP - 655

JO - Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

JF - Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

SN - 1050-0545

IS - 7

ER -