Home › Research › Risk factors
Relationships Among Hearing, Auditory Processing, and Cognition: A Study of Older Adults
Mullins K, Lister JJ, Bush ALH, Conover L, Sadeq N.. Audiology research, 2026-08-07
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
DSI emerged as a significant predictor across both MoCA and CBB, surpassing the predictive power of both types of PTAs. Surprisingly, relationships between hearing and cognitive measures differed for MoCA domains versus CBB subtests, highlighting the complexity of this association. The ability to separate and identify competing auditory information may be necessary components of healthy cognitive function.
Key findings
- DSI emerged as a significant predictor across both MoCA and CBB, surpassing the predictive power of both types of PTAs.
- Surprisingly, relationships between hearing and cognitive measures differed for MoCA domains versus CBB subtests, highlighting the complexity of this association.
- The ability to separate and identify competing auditory information may be necessary components of healthy cognitive function.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
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 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Audiology research) |
| 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 | 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) |
| 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 | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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
Mullins, K., Lister, J. J., Bush, A. L. H., Conover, L., & Sadeq, N. (2026). Relationships Among Hearing, Auditory Processing, and Cognition: A Study of Older Adults. Audiology research. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202608.0512.v1
Vancouver
Mullins K, Lister JJ, Bush ALH, Conover L, Sadeq N. Relationships Among Hearing, Auditory Processing, and Cognition: A Study of Older Adults. Audiology research. 2026. doi:10.20944/preprints202608.0512.v1.
BibTeX
@article{mullins2026-27bdc376,
author = {Mullins, K. and Lister, J. J. and Bush, A. L. H. and Conover, L. and Sadeq, N.},
title = {{Relationships Among Hearing, Auditory Processing, and Cognition: A Study of Older Adults}},
journal = {Audiology research},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.20944/preprints202608.0512.v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202608.0512.v1}
}
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.