Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Objective This investigation was designed to determine whether people in the early to middle phases of Alzheimer's disease (AD) show impaired central auditory processing as compared with nondemented elderly. Design A peripheral and central auditory test battery was administered to 10 subjects diagnosed with mild-to-moderate AD based on a neuropsychological test battery and radiographic techniques, and a control group of 10 subjects with no evidence of dementia, matched for age, gender, and average degree of hearing loss. Immittance audiometry, pure-tone and speech audiometry, and otoacoustic emissions were recorded in all subjects. Central auditory assessment included the synthetic sentence identification with ipsilateral competing message, dichotic digits, dichotic sentence identification, pitch patterns, and duration patterns. Results Peripheral auditory status was statistically similar between subject groups. Neither average high frequency hearing sensitivity nor mean speech recognition ability was significantly different. However, a significant difference was noted between groups for average low frequency hearing sensitivity in the left ear (p Conclusions Overall patterns in findings cannot be easily explained as artifacts of cognitive decline. Results support screening for central auditory dysfunction in the AD population, since impaired processing could influence psychiatric assessment of cognitive deficit as well as audiologic management of peripheral hearing loss in this population.

Key findings

Why it matters

People in early to middle phases of Alzheimer's disease showed impaired central auditory processing compared with nondemented elderly, though peripheral auditory status was similar. The results support screening for central auditory dysfunction in this population but do not indicate a treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 34/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 2 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 4 of 7; Citations per year 2 of 5; Impact for its field and year 1 of 6; Cited by studies here 1 of 6; Still being cited 1 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 1 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 33 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 34 of 100. Total 34 of 100.33 of the 96 points we could judge = 34 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 33 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 34 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Ear and hearing)
Journal's citation record 2 / 4 Ear and Hearing: journal h-index 171 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 1995 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 4 / 7 Cited 99 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 2 / 5 3.0 citations a year over 33 year(s) since 1995
Impact for its field and year 1 / 6 Cited 0.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 1 / 6 Cited by 2 other studies in this library
Still being cited 1 / 4 Cited 6 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record 1 / 3 Vanderbilt University: institution h-index 1,199 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 0 / 3 OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 7789674)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 33 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 34 out of 100.
Total 34 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Strouse, A. L., Hall, J. W., & Burger, M. C. (1995). Central auditory processing in Alzheimer's disease. Ear and hearing. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-199504000-00010

Vancouver

Strouse AL, Hall JW, Burger MC. Central auditory processing in Alzheimer's disease. Ear and hearing. 1995. doi:10.1097/00003446-199504000-00010. PMID: 7789674.

BibTeX

@article{strouse1995-7789674,
  author  = {Strouse, A. L. and Hall, J. W. and Burger, M. C.},
  title   = {{Central auditory processing in Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {Ear and hearing},
  year    = {1995},
  doi     = {10.1097/00003446-199504000-00010},
  pmid    = {7789674},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-199504000-00010}
}

Later studies that cite this one

2 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Digital health tools

Also in Digital health tools

178 studies in the library are filed under Digital health tools with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Digital health tools hub.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →