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.

16/100

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Plain-language summary

Crossmodal plasticity refers to the phenomenon by which typical sensory areas respond to stimulation in other sensory modalities when their main input is absent or reduced. In this study, we examined the effect of age-related hearing loss (ARHL) on crossmodal plasticity in auditory brain regions. ARHL is prevalent in a large proportion of older adults, and it is associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Understanding how the brain adapts to ARHL is essential in aiding the development of adequate therapies and interventions for a phenomenon experienced by most adults aged 65 and over. Previous research in congenitally deaf adults has shown that crossmodal plasticity effects are stronger for conditions that require higher executive demands. We conducted an fMRI experiment in older adults to determine whether crossmodal recruitment of auditory cortical regions during higher executive demands also occurs following ARHL. In the MRI scanner, participants with and without ARHL completed a visual task-switching paradigm and a visual working memory task, each comprising high and low executive-demand conditions. Results from both groups of participants showed that the high-demand conditions reliably activated canonical frontoparietal regions involved in executive function and cognitive control. Crucially, we also observed significant recruitment of auditory regions during these visual tasks, particularly under the higher executive demands condition of the task-switching paradigm. Crossmodal activations in auditory areas occurred in both groups, with no significant effects of hearing level or age. These findings indicate that auditory regions are involved in high executive demand visual processing, and that crossmodal plasticity effects are not restricted to early sensitive periods. We propose that reduced auditory input and age-related changes in cortical processing jointly contribute to the reorganisation of the auditory cortex in later life. Understanding these mechanisms is critical for clarifying the neural consequences of ARHL and their impact on cognitive decline.

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

APA 7th

Pan, Z., Połeć, M., Avgerinos, A., Bi, K., Green, T., & Cardin, V. (2026). Crossmodal plasticity effects of hearing loss and ageing in the human auditory cortex. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.06.08.730968

Vancouver

Pan Z, Połeć M, Avgerinos A, Bi K, Green T, Cardin V. Crossmodal plasticity effects of hearing loss and ageing in the human auditory cortex. bioRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.06.08.730968.

BibTeX

@article{pan2026-1aad7f20,
  author  = {Pan, Z. and Połeć, M. and Avgerinos, A. and Bi, K. and Green, T. and Cardin, V.},
  title   = {{Crossmodal plasticity effects of hearing loss and ageing in the human auditory cortex}},
  journal = {bioRxiv},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.64898/2026.06.08.730968},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.06.08.730968}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

ARHL is prevalent in a large proportion of older adults, and it is associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia.
Previous research in congenitally deaf adults has shown that crossmodal plasticity effects are stronger for conditions that require higher executive demands.
Results from both groups of participants showed that the high-demand conditions reliably activated canonical frontoparietal regions involved in executive function and cognitive control.
Crucially, we also observed significant recruitment of auditory regions during these visual tasks, particularly under the higher executive demands condition of the task-switching paradigm.
Crossmodal activations in auditory areas occurred in both groups, with no significant effects of hearing level or age.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 16/100

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 21 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 21 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	2 / 10	Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (bioRxiv)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
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	4 / 10	Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent	5 / 5	2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	1 / 2	Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	13 / 62	Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 21 out of 100.
Total	21 / 100	Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

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

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Risk factors from nearby years

Also tagged “hearing”

119 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hearing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 119 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →