Two experiments using the materials of the Revised Speech Perception in Noise (SPIN-R) Test [Bilger et al., J. Speech Hear. Res. 27, 32-48 (1984)] were conducted to investigate age-related differences in the identification and the recall of sentence-final words heard in a babble background. In experiment 1, the level of the babble was varied to determine psychometric functions (percent correct word identification as a function of S/N ratio) for presbycusics, old adults with near-normal hearing, and young normal-hearing adults, when the sentence-final words were either predictable (high context) or unpredictable (low context). Differences between the psychometric functions for high- and low-context conditions were used to show that both groups of old listeners derived more benefit from supportive context than did young listeners. In experiment 2, a working memory task [Daneman and Carpenter, J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 19, 450-466 (1980)] was added to the SPIN task for young and old adults. Specifically, after listening to and identifying the sentence-final words for a block of n sentences, the subjects were asked to recall the last n words that they had identified. Old subjects recalled fewer of the items they had perceived than did young subjects in all S/N conditions, even though there was no difference in the recall ability of the two age groups when sentences were read. Furthermore, the number of items recalled by both age groups was reduced in adverse S/N conditions. The resutls were interpreted as supporting a processing model in which reallocable processing resources are used to support auditory processing when listening becomes difficult either because of noise, or because of age-related deterioration in the auditory system. Because of this reallocation, these resources are unavailable to more central cognitive processes such as the storage and retrieval functions of working memory, so that "upstream" processing of auditory information is adversely affected.

5SThe Fifth Eriksholm Workshop on "Hearing Impairment and Cognitive Energy" was convened to develop a consensus among interdisciplinary experts about what is known on the topic, gaps in knowledge, the use of terminology, priorities for future research, and implications for practice. The general term cognitive energy was chosen to facilitate the broadest possible discussion of the topic. It goes back to Titchener (1908) who described the effects of attention on perception; he used the term psychic energy for the notion that limited mental resources can be flexibly allocated among perceptual and mental activities. The workshop focused on three main areas: (1) theories, models, concepts, definitions, and frameworks; (2) methods and measures; and (3) knowledge translation. We defined effort as the deliberate allocation of mental resources to overcome obstacles in goal pursuit when carrying out a task, with listening effort applying more specifically when tasks involve listening. We adapted Kahneman's seminal (1973) Capacity Model of Attention to listening and proposed a heuristically useful Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL). Our FUEL incorporates the well-known relationship between cognitive demand and the supply of cognitive capacity that is the foundation of cognitive theories of attention. Our FUEL also incorporates a motivation dimension based on complementary theories of motivational intensity, adaptive gain control, and optimal performance, fatigue, and pleasure. Using a three-dimensional illustration, we highlight how listening effort depends not only on hearing difficulties and task demands but also on the listener's motivation to expend mental effort in the challenging situations of everyday life.

The goal of this commentary is to highlight the ageism that has emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Over 20 international researchers in the field of ageing have contributed to this document. This commentary discusses how older people are misrepresented and undervalued in the current public discourse surrounding the pandemic. It points to issues in documenting the deaths of older adults, the lack of preparation for such a crisis in long-term care homes, how some ‘protective’ policies can be considered patronising and how the initial perception of the public was that the virus was really an older adult problem. This commentary also calls attention to important intergenerational solidarity that has occurred during this crisis to ensure support and social-inclusion of older adults, even at a distance. Our hope is that with this commentary we can contribute to the discourse on older adults during this pandemic and diminish the ageist attitudes that have circulated.

Thresholds for detecting a gap between two Gaussian-enveloped (standard deviation = 0.5 ms), 2-kHz tones were determined in young and old listeners. The gap-detection thresholds of old adults were more variable and about twice as large as those obtained from young adults. Moreover, gap-detection thresholds were not correlated with audiometric thresholds in either group. Estimates of the width of the temporal window of young subjects, based on the detection of a gap between two tone pips, were smaller than those typically obtained when a relatively long duration pure tone is interrupted [Moore et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 85, 1266-1275 (1989)]. Because the amount of time it takes to recover from an adapting stimulus is likely to affect gap detection thresholds [Glasberg et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 81, 1546-1556 (1987)], smaller estimates of temporal window size would be expected in this paradigm if the amount of adaptation produced by the first tone pip was negligible. The larger gap-detection thresholds of old subjects indicate that they may have larger temporal windows than young subjects. The lack of correlation between audiometric and gap-detection thresholds indicates that this loss of temporal acuity is not related to the degree of sensorineural hearing loss. In a second experiment on the precedence effect using the same subjects, a Gaussian-enveloped tone was presented over earphones to the left ear followed by the same tone pip presented to the right ear. To more realistically approximate a sound field situation, the tone pip presented to each ear was followed 0.6 ms later by an attenuated version presented to the contralateral ear. The delay between the left- and right-ear tone-pips was varied and the transition point between hearing a single tone on the left, and hearing two such sounds in close succession (one coming from the left and the other from the right) was determined. The transition point in this experiment did not differ between young and old subjects nor were these transition points correlated with gap-detection thresholds. These results indicate that monaural temporal acuity and binaural echo suppression may be based on different processes.

Objective: The aims of the current n200 study were to assess the structural relations between three classes of test variables (i.e. HEARING, COGNITION and aided speech-in-noise OUTCOMES) and to describe the theoretical implications of these relations for the Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model. Study sample: Participants were 200 hard-of-hearing hearing-aid users, with a mean age of 60.8 years. Forty-three percent were females and the mean hearing threshold in the better ear was 37.4 dB HL. Design: LEVEL1 factor analyses extracted one factor per test and/or cognitive function based on a priori conceptualizations. The more abstract LEVEL 2 factor analyses were performed separately for the three classes of test variables. Results: The HEARING test variables resulted in two LEVEL 2 factors, which we labelled SENSITIVITY and TEMPORAL FINE STRUCTURE; the COGNITIVE variables in one COGNITION factor only, and OUTCOMES in two factors, NO CONTEXT and CONTEXT. COGNITION predicted the NO CONTEXT factor to a stronger extent than the CONTEXT outcome factor. TEMPORAL FINE STRUCTURE and SENSITIVITY were associated with COGNITION and all three contributed significantly and independently to especially the NO CONTEXT outcome scores (R2 = 0.40). Conclusions: All LEVEL 2 factors are important theoretically as well as for clinical assessment.

No abstract

ObjectivesThe objective of the current study was to understand the added effects of having a sensory impairment (vision and/or hearing impairment) in combination with cognitive impairment with respect to health-related outcomes among older adults (65+ years old) receiving home care or residing in a long-term care (LTC) facility in Ontario, Canada.MethodsCross-sectional analyses were conducted using existing data collected with one of two interRAI assessments, one for home care (n = 291,824) and one for LTC (n = 110,578). Items in the assessments were used to identify clients with single sensory impairments (e.g., vision only [VI], hearing only [HI]), dual sensory impairment (DSI; i.e., vision and hearing) and those with cognitive impairment (CI). We defined seven mutually exclusive groups based on the presence of single or combined impairments.ResultsThe rate of people having all three impairments (i.e., CI+DSI) was 21.3% in home care and 29.2% in LTC. Across the seven groups, individuals with all three impairments were the most likely to report loneliness, to have a reduction in social engagement, and to experience reduced independence in their activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental ADLs (IADLs). Communication challenges were highly prevalent in this group, at 38.0% in home care and 49.2% in LTC. In both care settings, communication difficulties were more common in the CI+DSI group versus the CI-alone group.ConclusionsThe presence of combined sensory and cognitive impairments is high among older adults in these two care settings and having all three impairments is associated with higher rates of negative outcomes than the rates for those having CI alone. There is a rising imperative for all health care professionals to recognize the potential presence of hearing, vision and cognitive impairments in those for whom they provide care, to ensure that basic screening occurs and to use those results to inform care plans.

By establishing the best scores that could reasonably be expected from younger and older adults with "normal" hearing thresholds, these results provide clinicians with information that should assist them in setting realistic targets for interventions for adults of different ages.