ArticleEar and hearing
Metacognition for Listening in Noise: The Role of Age and Hearing Loss.
Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDespite general awareness about hearing difficulties in aging, older adults often respond to listening challenges by adopting maladaptive coping strategies, such as social withdrawal or isolation, that could negatively affect their well-being. Reasons behind such behaviors have been studied within the framework of metacognition (i.e., the ability to monitor one's performance and reflect on one's cognitive processes), which plays an important role in shaping strategic behavior. While previous research suggests that metacognitive abilities for listening are preserved with age, studies with younger adults indicate that hearing loss (HL) might reduce self-efficacy and perceived control over listening challenges, potentially influencing strategy use. Whether similar effects occur in older adults, a population particularly affected by listening difficulties, remains unclear. This study examined the impact of age and mild HL on metacognitive abilities related to listening and studied their association with the use of compensatory strategies.
designSeventy-nine participants were recruited: 26 younger adults with normal hearing (NH; 20.8 yrs; 3 males), 26 older NH adults (64.6 yrs; 8 males), and 27 older adults with HL, none of whom used hearing aids (67.7 yrs; 14 males). Metacognitive monitoring was assessed through a listening-in-noise task, and broader metacognitive constructs (self-efficacy, locus of control, and knowledge of listening abilities) were evaluated using questionnaires. In addition, the influence of age and HL on self-reported use of compensatory strategies (tested by using questionnaire) was examined, along with their relationship with metacognitive factors. Group comparisons were performed using parametric t test analyses.
resultsAge alone did not affect metacognitive monitoring, nor beliefs and knowledge about listening abilities. However, older adults with HL reported lower self-efficacy and less frequent use of some behavioral strategies compared with their NH peers, in the context of intact monitoring skills. Notably, perceived control and self-efficacy were associated with reported strategy use, especially among participants with HL.
conclusionsEven mild HL appears to be reflected in older adults' self-perceptions of listening abilities. The links between metacognitive beliefs, perceived control, and strategy use suggest that these factors may shape coping behavior in the presence of HL. Our findings highlight the importance of addressing metacognitive aspects in interventions aimed at promoting adaptive listening strategies among older adults with hearing loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.