Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 393

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Central Presbycusis: A Review and Evaluation of the Evidence

Open access
Humes, Larry E., Dubno, Judy R., Gordon-Salant, Sandra, Lister, Jennifer J., Cacace, Anthony T., Cruickshanks, Karen J., Gates, George A., Wilson, Richard H., Wingfield, Arthur·2012·Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

Abstract

Background:The authors reviewed the evidence regarding the existence of age-related declines in central auditory processes and the consequences of any such declines for everyday communication.Purpose:This report summarizes the review process and presents its findings.Data Collection and Analysis:The authors reviewed 165 articles germane to central presbycusis. Of the 165 articles, 132 articles with a focus on human behavioral measures for either speech or nonspeech stimuli were selected for further analysis.Results:For 76 smaller-scale studies of speech understanding in older adults reviewed, the following findings emerged: (1) the three most commonly studied behavioral measures were speech in competition, temporally distorted speech, and binaural speech perception (especially dichotic listening); (2) for speech in competition and temporally degraded speech, hearing loss proved to have a significant negative effect on performance in most of the laboratory studies; (3) significant negative effects of age, unconfounded by hearing loss, were observed in most of the studies of speech in competing speech, time-compressed speech, and binaural speech perception; and (4) the influence of cognitive processing on speech understanding has been examined much less frequently, but when included, significant positive associations with speech understanding were observed.For 36 smaller-scale studies of the perception of nonspeech stimuli by older adults reviewed, the following findings emerged: (1) the three most frequently studied behavioral measures were gap detection, temporal discrimination, and temporal-order discrimination or identification; (2) hearing loss was seldom a significant factor; and (3) negative effects of age were almost always observed.For 18 studies reviewed that made use of test batteries and medium-to-large sample sizes, the following findings emerged: (1) all studies included speech-based measures of auditory processing; (2) 4 of the 18 studies included nonspeech stimuli; (3) for the speech-based measures, monaural speech in a competing-speech background, dichotic speech, and monaural time-compressed speech were investigated most frequently; (4) the most frequently used tests were the Synthetic Sentence Identification (SSI) test with Ipsilateral Competing Message (ICM), the Dichotic Sentence Identification (DSI) test, and time-compressed speech; (5) many of these studies using speech-based measures reported significant effects of age, but most of these studies were confounded by declines in hearing, cognition, or both; (6) for nonspeech auditory-processing measures, the focus was on measures of temporal processing in all four studies; (7) effects of cognition on nonspeech measures of auditory processing have been studied less frequently, with mixed results, whereas the effects of hearing loss on performance were minimal due to judicious selection of stimuli; and (8) there is a paucity of observational studies using test batteries and longitudinal designs.Conclusions:Based on this review of the scientific literature, there is insufficient evidence to confirm the existence of central presbycusis as an isolated entity. On the other hand, recent evidence has been accumulating in support of the existence of central presbycusis as a multifactorial condition that involves age- and/or disease-related changes in the auditory system and in the brain. Moreover, there is a clear need for additional research in this area.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3766/jaaa.23.8.5

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 95 references

Cited by

See all 393

Metadata

Authors
Humes, L. E., Dubno, J. R., Gordon-Salant, S., Lister, J. J., Cacace, A. T., Cruickshanks, K. J., Gates, G. A., Wilson, R. H., & Wingfield, A.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology
Published
2012-09-01
Volume
23
Issue
8
Pages
635-666
ISSN
1050-0545 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2137182383
Cited by
393
References
95
FWCI
10.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Central Presbycusis: A Review and Evaluation of the Evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3766/jaaa.23.8.5
The paper
Humes, L. E., Dubno, J. R., Gordon-Salant, S., Lister, J. J., Cacace, A. T., Cruickshanks, K. J., Gates, G. A., Wilson, R. H., & Wingfield, A. (2012). Central Presbycusis: A Review and Evaluation of the Evidence. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.23.8.5

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.