Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of a non-auditory neurocognitive test battery in hearing-impaired according to age

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Due to the demographic shift, the number of older people suffering from hearing loss and from cognitive impairment increases. Both are closely related and hard to differentiate as most standard cognitive test batteries are auditory-based and hearing-impaired individuals perform worse also in non-auditory test batteries. Therefore, reference data for hearing-impaired are mandatory.

Methods

The computer-based battery ALAcog assesses multiple cognitive domains, such as attention, (delayed) memory, working memory, inhibition, processing speed, mental flexibility and verbal fluency. A data set of 201 bilaterally hearing-impaired subjects aged ≥ 50 (mean 66.6 (SD 9.07)) was analysed. The LMS method, estimated curves for the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 90th percentile were calculated, and classified according to age, starting from the age of 50.

Results

Cognitive function shows a decline in all subtests as people age, except for verbal fluency, which remains almost stable over age. The greatest declines were seen in recall and delayed recall and in mental flexibility. Age and hearing ability did not correlate (p = 0.68). However, as people age, inter-subject variability of cognitive test results increases. This was especially the case for inhibition. Cognitive function was not correlated with hearing ability (each p ≥ 0.13).

Conclusion

The present results make an approach to establish reference data for a comprehensive non-auditory test battery in a large sample of elderly hearing-impaired people which can be used as a simple tool to better contextualise cognitive performance beyond mean and median scores.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The full data set building up the results of this study are not openly available. The corresponding author provides detailed information upon her discretion if requested. Data are stored at the comprehensive hearing centre, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany.

References

  1. Guerchet M, Prince M, Prina M (2020) Numbers of people with dementia worldwide: an update to the estimates in the World Alzheimer Report 2015

  2. Shield B (2018) Hearing loss—numbers and costs: evaluation of the social and economic costs of hearing impairment. A report for Hear-It AISBL. https://www.hear-it.org/hearing-loss-in-europe. Accessed 13 Jul 2023

  3. Livingston G, Huntley J, Sommerlad A et al (2020) Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2020 report of the Lancet Commission. Lancet 396:413–446

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Sarant J, Harris D, Busby P et al (2020) The effect of hearing aid use on cognition in older adults: can we delay decline or even improve cognitive function? J Clin Med

  5. Lin FR, Pike JR, Albert MS et al (2023) Hearing intervention versus health education control to reduce cognitive decline in older adults with hearing loss in the USA (ACHIEVE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 402:786–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Völter C, Götze L, Dazert S et al (2023) Longitudinal trajectories of memory among middle-aged and older people with hearing loss: the influence of cochlear implant use on cognitive functioning. Front Aging Neurosci 15:1220184

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Abraham AG, Hong C, Deal JA et al (2023) Are cognitive researchers ignoring their senses? The problem of sensory deficit in cognitive aging research. J Am Geriatr Soc 71:1369–1377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown-Quigley B, Gaeta L (2023) Considering individuals’ hearing ability before administering cognitive assessments. Cogn Behav Neurol 36:63–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pye A, Charalambous AP, Leroi I et al (2017) Screening tools for the identification of dementia for adults with age-related acquired hearing or vision impairment: a scoping review. Int Psychogeriatr 29:1771–1784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Völter C, Götze L, Dazert S et al (2020) Impact of hearing loss on geriatric assessment. Clin Interv Aging 15:2453–2467

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Jorgensen LE, Palmer CV, Pratt S et al (2016) The effect of decreased audibility on MMSE performance: a measure commonly used for diagnosing dementia. J Am Acad Audiol 27:311–323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gaeta L, Azzarello J, Baldwin J et al (2019) Effect of reduced audibility on Mini-Mental State Examination scores. J Am Acad Audiol 30:845–855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dupuis K, Marchuk V, Pichora-Fuller MK (2016) Noise affects performance on the montreal cognitive assessment. Can J Aging 35:298–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Füllgrabe C (2020) On the possible overestimation of cognitive decline: the impact of age-related hearing loss on cognitive-test performance. Front Neurosci 14:454

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Füllgrabe C, Öztürk OC (2022) Immediate effects of (simulated) age-related hearing loss on cognitive processing and performance for the backward-digit-span task. Front Aging Neurosci 14:912746

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Borsboom D (2005) Measuring the mind: conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Ballasch I, De Kruif A, Hendel MK et al (2023) O-DEM: ein neues kognitives Screening bei Schwerhörigkeit. HNO 71:599–606

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. North C, Heatley MH, Utoomprurkporn N et al (2021) Adaption and preliminary validation of the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-III as a screening test for mild cognitive impairment and dementia in hearing-impaired individuals. Eur J Neurol 28:1820–1828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dawes P, Reeves D, Yeung WK et al (2023) Development and validation of the Montreal cognitive assessment for people with hearing impairment (MoCA-H). J Am Geriatr Soc. 71(5):1485–1494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dupuis K, Pichora-Fuller MK, Chasteen AL et al (2015) Effects of hearing and vision impairments on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 22:413–437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Völter C, Fricke H, Faour S et al (2023) Validation of the German Montreal-Cognitive-Assessment-H for hearing-impaired. Front Aging Neurosci 15:1209385

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Utoomprurkporn N, Stott J, Costafreda SG et al (2021) The screening accuracy of a visually based Montreal cognitive assessment tool for older adult hearing aid users. Front Aging Neurosci 13:706282

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Lin VYW, Chung J, Callahan BL et al (2017) Development of cognitive screening test for the severely hearing impaired: hearing-impaired MoCA. Laryngoscope 127(Suppl 1):4–11

    Google Scholar 

  24. Roebuck-Spencer TM, Glen T, Puente AE et al (2017) Cognitive screening tests versus comprehensive neuropsychological test batteries: a National Academy of Neuropsychology Education Paper. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 32:491–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Knopke S, Schubert A, Häussler SM et al (2021) Improvement of working memory and processing speed in patients over 70 with bilateral hearing impairment following unilateral cochlear implantation. J Clin Med 10:3421

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Huber M, Roesch S, Pletzer B et al (2020) Cognition in older adults with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss compared to peers with normal hearing for age. Int J Audiol 59:254–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Falkenstein M, Hoormann J, Hohnsbein J (1999) ERP components in Go/Nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 101:267–291

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Völter C, Götze L, Falkenstein M et al (2017) Application of a computer-based neurocognitive assessment battery in the elderly with and without hearing loss. Clin Interv Aging 12:1681–1690

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Völter C, Götze L, Kamin ST et al (2022) Can cochlear implantation prevent cognitive decline in the long-term follow-up? Front Neurol 13:1009087

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Drozdowska A, Falkenstein M, Lücke T et al (2022) Unfavorable behaviors in children run in packs! Dietary and non-dietary modulators of attentional capacity. Nutrients 14:5264

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Kardys C, Küper K, Getzmann S et al (2022) A comparison of the effects of short-term physical and combined multi-modal training on cognitive functions. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19:7506

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Dryden A, Allen HA, Henshaw H et al (2017) The association between cognitive performance and speech-in-noise perception for adult listeners: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Trends Hear 21:2331216517744675

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Guglielmi V, Marra C, Picciotti PM et al (2019) Does hearing loss in the elderly individuals conform to impairment of specific cognitive domains? J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 0891988719874117

  34. Loughrey DG, Pakhomov SVS, Lawlor BA (2020) Altered verbal fluency processes in older adults with age-related hearing loss. Exp Gerontol 130:110794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Moberly AC, Houston DM, Harris MS et al (2017) Verbal working memory and inhibition-concentration in adults with cochlear implants. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2:254–261

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Shende SA, Mudar RA (2023) Cognitive control in age-related hearing loss: a narrative review. Hear Res 436:108814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mosnier I, Vanier A, Bonnard D et al (2018) Long-term cognitive prognosis of profoundly deaf older adults after hearing rehabilitation using cochlear implants. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:1553–1561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. WHO (2021) World report on hearing. 2021:S1–S272. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240020481. Accessed 27 Dec 2023

  39. American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (2021) https://www.entnet.org/resource/position-statement-red-flags-warning-of-ear-disease/: American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Position statement: red flags—warning of ear disease. Accessed 27 Dec 2023

  40. Brickenkamp R (1962) Test d2: Aufmerksamkeits-Belastungs-Test. Hogrefe Verl. für Psychologie, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  41. Helmstaedter C, Lendt M, Lux S (2001) Verbaler Lern- und Merkfähigkeitstest: VLMT; Manual. Beltz-Test, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lezak MD (2004) Neuropsychological assessment. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  43. Thurstone LL (1948) Primary mental abilities. Science 108:585

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kirchner WK (1958) Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. J Exp Psychol 55:352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW (1974) Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Atten Percept Psychophys 16:143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Reitan RM (1958) Validity of the trail making test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Percept Mot Skills 8:271–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Cole TJ, Green PJ (1992) Smoothing reference centile curves: the LMS method and penalized likelihood. Stat Med 11:1305–1319

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Cosetti MK, Pinkston JB, Flores JM et al (2016) Neurocognitive testing and cochlear implantation: insights into performance in older adults. Clin Interv Aging 11:603–613

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Harada CN, Natelson Love MC, Triebel KL (2013) Normal cognitive aging. Clin Geriatr Med 29:737–752

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Bornmann L, Marx W (2013) How good is research really? Measuring the citation impact of publications with percentiles increases correct assessments and fair comparisons. EMBO Rep 14:226–230

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Petermann-Rocha F, Rao N, Pell JP et al (2022) Weight-for-height, body fat, and development in children in the East Asia and Pacific Region. JAMA Netw Open 5:e2142458–e2142458

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Born D-P, Lomax I, Rüeger E et al (2022) Normative data and percentile curves for long-term athlete development in swimming. J Sci Med Sport 25:266–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Beker N, Sikkes SAM, Hulsman M et al (2019) Neuropsychological test performance of cognitively healthy centenarians: normative data from the Dutch 100-plus Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:759–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Andries E, Bosmans J, Engelborghs S et al (2023) Evaluation of cognitive functioning before and after cochlear implantation in adults aged 55 years and older at risk for mild cognitive impairment. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 149:310–316

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Salthouse TA (2009) When does age-related cognitive decline begin? Neurobiol Aging 30:507–514

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Shao Z, Janse E, Visser K et al (2014) What do verbal fluency tasks measure? Predictors of verbal fluency performance in older adults. Front Psychol 5:772

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. de Felice S, Holland CA (2018) Intra-individual variability across fluid cognition can reveal qualitatively different cognitive styles of the aging brain. Front Psychol 9:1973

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Ardila A (2007) Normal aging increases cognitive heterogeneity: analysis of dispersion in WAIS-III scores across age. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 22:1003–1011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Shen J, Sherman M, Souza PE (2020) Test administration methods and cognitive test scores in older adults with hearing loss. Gerontology 66:24–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Völter C, Oberländer K, Haubitz I et al (2022) Poor performer: a distinct entity in cochlear implant users? Audiol Neurootol 27(5):356–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Broome EE, Tannirandorn P, Straus J et al (2023) Patient perceptions of cognitive screening in adult audiology services: a qualitative exploration. Front Neurol 14:1143128

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Blazer DG, Yaffe K, Liverman CT et al (eds) (2015) Cognitive aging: progress in understanding and opportunities for action. The National Academies Press, Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Zhang S, Qiu Q, Qian S et al (2021) Determining appropriate screening tools and cutoffs for cognitive impairment in the Chinese elderly. Front Psychiatry 12:773281

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to Ludger Blanker, ALA Institute, for technical support and would like to acknowledge the former medical students Robert Käppeler, Janine Müther and Marcel Bajewski for data collection and the support of the patients and of the staff of the Comprehensive Hearing Center of the Ruhr-University Bochum for study participation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Catholic Hospital, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    L. Götze, I. Haubitz & C. Völter

  2. Department of Medical Informatics, Epidemiology and Biometry, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    F. Sheikh & N. Timmesfeld

  3. ALA Institute, Bochum, Germany

    M. Falkenstein

Authors
  1. L. Götze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Sheikh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. Haubitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Falkenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. Timmesfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Völter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CV and LG designed the study. MF provided the ALAcog test battery. LG collected part of the data. NT and FS did the statistical analysis. CV and LG wrote the manuscript with contributions and critical feedback from MF, NT and IH. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Völter.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

The ethics institution of the Ruhr-University Bochum approved this study (No. 16-5727-BR). Written informed consent was obtained by all participants and the study meets the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 906 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Götze, L., Sheikh, F., Haubitz, I. et al. Evaluation of a non-auditory neurocognitive test battery in hearing-impaired according to age. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 281, 2941–2949 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-08408-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-08408-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation