Home › Research › Risk factors
Hearing Loss and Cognition: What We Know and Where We Need to Go
Powell DS, Oh ES, Reed NS, Lin FR, Deal JA.. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2022-02-28
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Although a causal association remains to be determined, epidemiologic evidence suggests an association between hearing loss and increased risk of dementia. If we determine the association is causal, opportunity for targeted intervention for hearing loss may play a fundamental role in dementia prevention. In this discussion, we summarize current research on the association between hearing loss and dementia and review potential casual mechanisms behind the association (e.g., sensory-deprivation hypothesis, information-degradation hypothesis, common cause). We emphasize key areas of research which might best inform our investigation of this potential casual association. These selected research priorities include examination of the causal mechanism, measurement of co-existing hearing loss and cognitive impairment and determination of any bias in testing, potential for managing hearing loss for prevention of dementia and cognitive decline, or the potential to reduce dementia-related symptoms through the management of hearing loss. Addressing these research gaps and how results are then translated for clinical use may prove paramount for dementia prevention, management, and overall health of older adults.
Key findings
- Although a causal association remains to be determined, epidemiologic evidence suggests an association between hearing loss and increased risk of dementia.
- Addressing these research gaps and how results are then translated for clinical use may prove paramount for dementia prevention, management, and overall health of older adults.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
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 journal's citation record, 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in aging neuroscience) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 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 | — / 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35295208) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
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.
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
Powell, D. S., Oh, E. S., Reed, N. S., Lin, F. R., & Deal, J. A. (2021). Hearing Loss and Cognition: What We Know and Where We Need to Go. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.769405
Vancouver
Powell DS, Oh ES, Reed NS, Lin FR, Deal JA. Hearing Loss and Cognition: What We Know and Where We Need to Go. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2021. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2021.769405. PMID: 35295208.
BibTeX
@article{powell2021-35295208,
author = {Powell, D. S. and Oh, E. S. and Reed, N. S. and Lin, F. R. and Deal, J. A.},
title = {{Hearing Loss and Cognition: What We Know and Where We Need to Go}},
journal = {Frontiers in aging neuroscience},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.3389/fnagi.2021.769405},
pmid = {35295208},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.769405}
}
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “hearing”
118 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 118 tagged studies.