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.

44/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

In the dementia field, a number of applications are being developed aimed at boosting functional abilities. There is an interesting gap as to how utilising serious games can further the knowledge on the potential relationship between hearing and cognitive health in mid-life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the auditory-cognitive training application HELIX, against outcome measures for speech-in-noise, cognitive tasks, communication confidence, quality of life, and usability. A randomised-controlled trial was completed for 43 participants with subjective hearing loss and/or cognitive impairment, over a play period of 4 weeks and a follow-up period of another 4 weeks. Outcome measures included a new online implementation of the Digit-Triplet-Test, a battery of online cognitive tests, and quality of life questionnaires. Paired semi-structured interviews and usability measures were completed to assess HELIX's impact on quality of life and usability. An improvement in the performance of the Digit-Triplet-Test, measured 4 and 8 weeks after the baseline, was found within the training group; however, this improvement was not significant between the training and control groups. No significant improvements were found in any other outcome measures. Thematic analysis suggested HELIX prompted the realisation of difficulties and actions required, improved listening, and positive behaviour change. Employing a participatory design approach has ensured HELIX is relevant and useful for participants who may be at risk of developing age-related hearing loss and cognitive decline. Although an improvement in the Digit-Triplet-Test was seen, it is not possible to conclude whether this was as a result of playing HELIX.

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

APA 7th

Frost, E., Malhotra, P., Porat, T., Poole, K. C., Menon, A., & Picinali, L. (2025). HEaring and LIstening eXperience (HELIX): Evaluation of a co-designed serious game for auditory-cognitive training. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218251324168

Vancouver

Frost E, Malhotra P, Porat T, Poole KC, Menon A, Picinali L. HEaring and LIstening eXperience (HELIX): Evaluation of a co-designed serious game for auditory-cognitive training. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2025. doi:10.1177/17470218251324168. PMID: 39972554.

BibTeX

@article{frost2025-39972554,
  author  = {Frost, Emily and Malhotra, Paresh and Porat, Talya and Poole, Katarina C. and Menon, Aarya and Picinali, Lorenzo},
  title   = {{HEaring and LIstening eXperience (HELIX): Evaluation of a co-designed serious game for auditory-cognitive training}},
  journal = {Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1177/17470218251324168},
  pmid    = {39972554},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218251324168}
}

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

An improvement in the performance of the Digit-Triplet-Test, measured 4 and 8 weeks after the baseline, was found within the training group; however, this improvement was not significant between the training and control groups.
No significant improvements were found in any other outcome measures.
Although an improvement in the Digit-Triplet-Test was seen, it is not possible to conclude whether this was as a result of playing HELIX.

Why it matters

In this randomized controlled trial of 43 participants, the HELIX auditory-cognitive training game showed an improvement in the Digit-Triplet-Test within the training group, but this was not significant between training and control groups. No significant improvements were found in any other outcome measures, so it cannot be concluded that the game improves cognition.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →

Study details

Participants43
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 44/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: journal h-index 157 (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	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	43 participants
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	1 / 7	Cited 2 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 1.1× 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 2 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Lorenzo Picinali: h-index 23 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	Imperial College London: institution h-index 1,744 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39972554)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	44 / 100	—

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

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

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Prevention trials

Also in Prevention trials

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

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →