Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39355541›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2024

Cognitive processing speed improvement after cochlear implantation.

Isabelle Mosnier, Joël Belmin, Domenico Cuda, Raquel Manrique Huarte, Mathieu Marx, Angel Ramos Macias, Riad Khnifes, Ohad Hilly, Roberto Bovo, Chris J James and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Montreal cognitive assessment scores predict long-term speech recognition in noise and can be used to guide rehabilitation of cochlear implant users.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Evaluating the Impact of Cochlear Implantation on Cognitive Outcomes in Older Adults: A 5-Year Follow-Up.Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Isabelle MosnierUnité Fonctionnelle Implants Auditifs, ORL, GH Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP Sorbonne Université and Université Paris Cité, Institut Pasteur, AP-HP, Inserm, Fondation Pour l'Audition, Institut de l'Audition, Paris, France.
Joël BelminSorbonne Université and Hôpital Charles Foix, Paris, France.
Domenico CudaOspedale Guglielmo da Saliceto, University of Parma, Piacenza, Italy.
Raquel Manrique HuarteClinica Universitaria de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Mathieu MarxHôpital Purpan, CHU, Toulouse, France.
Angel Ramos MaciasComplejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular Materno Infantil, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
Riad KhnifesBnai Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel.
Ohad HillyRabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Roberto BovoAzienda Ospedaliera di Padova, Padova, Italy.
Chris J JamesCochlear France SAS, Toulouse, France.
Petra L GrahamSchool of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Paula GreenhamGreenham Research Consulting Ltd., Ashbury, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Untreated hearing loss has an effect on cognition. It is hypothesized that the additional processing required to compensate for the sensory loss affects the cognitive resources available for other tasks and that this could be mitigated by a hearing device. Methods: The impact on cognition of cochlear implants (CIs) was tested in 100 subjects, ≥60 years old, with bilateral moderately-severe to profound post linguistic deafness using hearing aids. Data was compared pre and 12 and 18 months after cochlear implantation for the speech spatial qualities questionnaire, Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Trail making test B (TMTB) and digit symbol coding (DSC) from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale version IV and finally the timed up and go test (TUG). Subjects were divided into young old (60-64), middle old (65-75) and old old (75+) groups. Cognitive test scores and times were standardized according to available normative data. Results: Hearing significantly improved pre- to post-operatively across all age groups. There was no change post-implant in outcomes for TMTB, TUG or MMSE tests. Age-corrected values were within normal expectations for all age groups for the TUG and MMSE. However, DSC scores and TMTB times were worse than normal. There was a significant increase in DSC scores between baseline and 12-months for 60- to 64-year-olds ( Discussion: The improved attention and processing speed in the youngest age group may be a consequence of reallocation of cognitive resources away from auditory processing due to greatly improved hearing. The oldest age group of participants had cognition scores closest to normal values, suggesting that only the most able older seniors tend to come forward for a CI. Severe to profoundly deaf individuals with hearing aids or cochlear implants were still poorer than age-equivalent normally hearing individuals with respect to cognitive flexibility, attention, working memory, processing speed and visuoperceptual functions. Due to a lack of data for the TUG, TMTB and DSC in the literature for hearing impaired individuals, the results reported here provide an important set of reference data for use in future research.

Indexed as

cochlear implantcognitiondeclineelderlyhealthy aging

Identifiers

PMID39355541
PMCPMC11442269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.