ArticlePacific journal of health (Stockton, Calif.)2026
Simulated hearing loss in healthy young and older adults results in poor reaction time in older adults.
Article in Pacific journal of health (Stockton, Calif.), 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Emerging evidence links hearing loss to increased fall risk in older adults, yet mechanisms remain unclear. This study examined the impact of simulated hearing loss on reactive balance control in healthy young and older adults. Participants performed dual-task scenario involving auditory sentence repetition and unexpected surface translations. Hearing loss was simulated using Adobe Audition, applying frequency-specific attenuation based on moderate sensorineural hearing loss levels from the literature. Speech-in-noise performance significantly declined under simulated hearing loss for both age groups (p < .001), confirming effective simulation, but not significant differences were found between age groups. Maximum COP-COM displacement (the scalar distance between Center of Pressure and Center of Mass) increased with perturbation intensity (Level 1 vs. Level 2: p < .001), but no significant differences were found between hearing conditions or age groups (p > .05), suggesting compensatory step execution was preserved. Reaction time analysis revealed a significant interaction between hearing condition and perturbation level (p < .01). Older adults showed a smaller reduction in reaction time between Level 1 and Level 2 perturbations under simulated hearing loss (Level 1: 283±37 ms; Level 2: 224±20 ms) compared to normal hearing (Level 1: 298±42 ms; Level 2: 230±20 ms), indicating impaired ability to modulate initiation of reactive balance strategies during loss of balance with auditory challenge. These findings suggest that while older adults maintain compensatory stepping ability, simulated hearing loss may hinder their ability to adapt reaction timing during challenging dual-task scenarios. This impairment may contribute to increased fall risk in older adults with hearing loss. Further research is needed to explore underlying cognitive mechanisms and develop targeted interventions.
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.