Home › Research › Risk factors
Exploring the maze of the cognition-audition connection
Douglas L. Beck. The Hearing Journal, 2011-10-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
What do we know?Figure: Douglas BeckEdwards: Our research has primarily addressed the effect of hearing aid technology on “cognitive load.” We've been examining how much of an individual's cognitive resources are being used to accomplish listening in noise, with and without hearing aid technology.Figure: Brent EdwardsCognition is finite, and unfortunately when people multitask, neither task is performed maximally as a result of divided attention, and the net result is the individual has fewer cognitive resources available to accomplish the primary or secondary goal. Using dual-task experiments based on this concept, our research demonstrated that hearing aids can reduce listening effort for speech in noise.2 Pragmatically, and with respect to speech-in-noise, we know that listening fatigue is a factor as well, and this very much relates to our ability to attentively process speech in real time.3 In collaboration with Kevin Munro and Piers Dawes in the United Kingdom, and with specific regard to hearing aids, we measured working memory and other tests associated with speech and hearing as they relate to cognitive load and listening effort, with and without different hearing aid technologies. Preliminary results indicate that speed of processing tests and working-memory capacity are related to the cognitive benefit that subjects can get from hearing aid technology, but there is a significant amount of work necessary to confirm these results and understand these relationships. Beck: That brings to mind the study of Gates and his colleagues based on the Framingham Heart Study cohort, which found a significant correlation between speech-in-noise performance and the subsequent onset of dementia.5 The more recent study by Lin and colleagues based on the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging also found a significant correlation between pure-tone hearing loss and the subsequent onset of dementia.6 What does this mean? Edwards: My interpretation of those studies is that people with significant hearing loss were more likely to have signs of dementia, but that finding was correlational, not causative.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Beck, D. L. (2011). Exploring the maze of the cognition-audition connection. The Hearing Journal. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hj.0000406770.64981.d4
Vancouver
Beck DL. Exploring the maze of the cognition-audition connection. The Hearing Journal. 2011. doi:10.1097/01.hj.0000406770.64981.d4.
BibTeX
@article{beck2011-0ce0a339,
author = {Beck, Douglas L.},
title = {{Exploring the maze of the cognition-audition connection}},
journal = {The Hearing Journal},
year = {2011},
doi = {10.1097/01.hj.0000406770.64981.d4},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hj.0000406770.64981.d4}
}
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.
Key findings
- What do we know?Figure: Douglas BeckEdwards: Our research has primarily addressed the effect of hearing aid technology on “cognitive load.” We've been examining how much of an individual's cognitive resources are being used to accomplish listening in noise, with and without hearing aid technology.Figure: Brent EdwardsCognition is finite, and unfortunately when people multitask, neither task is performed maximally as a result of divided attention, and the net result is the individual has fewer cognitive resources available to accomplish the primary or secondary goal.
- Using dual-task experiments based on this concept, our research demonstrated that hearing aids can reduce listening effort for speech in noise.2 Pragmatically, and with respect to speech-in-noise, we know that listening fatigue is a factor as well, and this very much relates to our ability to attentively process speech in real time.3 In collaboration with Kevin Munro and Piers Dawes in the United Kingdom, and with specific regard to hearing aids, we measured working memory and other tests associated with speech and hearing as they relate to cognitive load and listening effort, with and without different hearing aid technologies.
- Preliminary results indicate that speed of processing tests and working-memory capacity are related to the cognitive benefit that subjects can get from hearing aid technology, but there is a significant amount of work necessary to confirm these results and understand these relationships.
- Beck: That brings to mind the study of Gates and his colleagues based on the Framingham Heart Study cohort, which found a significant correlation between speech-in-noise performance and the subsequent onset of dementia.5 The more recent study by Lin and colleagues based on the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging also found a significant correlation between pure-tone hearing loss and the subsequent onset of dementia.6 What does this mean?
- Edwards: My interpretation of those studies is that people with significant hearing loss were more likely to have signs of dementia, but that finding was correlational, not causative.
Why it matters
This discussion reports that hearing aids can reduce listening effort for speech in noise, and that processing speed and working memory relate to cognitive benefit from hearing aid technology. It does not show that hearing aids prevent or treat Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 31/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on institution's track record, so that was left out: it earned 30 of the 97 points we could judge it on, which is 31 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Hearing Journal) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | The Hearing Journal: journal h-index 33 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2011 — within 20 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) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 17 year(s) since 2011 |
| Impact for its field and year | 0 / 6 | Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 1 / 4 | Last-listed author Douglas L. Beck: h-index 12 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 0 institution(s) in 0 countries — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 30 / 97 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 97 points we could judge it on is 31 out of 100. |
| Total | 31 / 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.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also in Risk factors
356 studies in the library are filed under Risk factors with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Risk factors hub.