Download PDF
Laryngorhinootologie 2018; 97(04): 246-254
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-124972
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Computerbasierte Testung neurokognitiver Aspekte im Rahmen der audiologischen Diagnostik

Computer based neurocognitive testing in audiology
Christiane Völter
1   Universitätsklinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie der Ruhr-Universität Bochum
,
Lisa Götze
1   Universitätsklinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie der Ruhr-Universität Bochum
,
Michael Falkenstein
2   ALA Institut für Arbeiten Lernen Altern GmbH
3   Leibnitz Institut für Arbeitsforschung
,
Stefan Dazert
1   Universitätsklinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie der Ruhr-Universität Bochum
,
Jan Peter Thomas
1   Universitätsklinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie der Ruhr-Universität Bochum
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

07/28/2017

12/15/2017

Publication Date:
22 January 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund Im Hinblick auf den demographischen Wandel der Gesellschaft gewinnen in der Hörrehabilitation neurokognitive Fähigkeiten immer mehr an Bedeutung.

Fragestellung Ziel der Studie war es zu untersuchen, inwiefern eine neurokognitive Testung mittels PC-gestützter Aufgaben zur Evaluation der unterschiedlichen Bereiche der Kognition auch für ältere Patienten mit und ohne Hörstörung geeignet ist und wie sich diese in den klinischen Alltag des HNO-Arztes integrieren lässt.

Patientenbeschreibung 171 Patienten ≥ 50 Jahren mit und ohne eine beidseitige Hörbeeinträchtigung wurden eingeschlossen: n = 90 im Alter zwischen 50 und 64 Jahren (57,0 ± 4,5) und 81 Ältere ab 65 (72,5 ± 5,4).

Methode Eine computerbasierte Testung mit rein visuellen Instruktionen beinhaltete neben der Aufmerksamkeit, der Verarbeitungsgeschwindigkeit, dem Kurz- und Langzeitgedächtnis auch exekutive Funktionen. Zuvor erfolgte ein Probedurchgang unter Anleitung einer geschulten Mitarbeiterin.

Ergebnisse Auch wenn die Testung unabhängig von Alter oder Hörstatus in allen Fällen eigenständig möglich war, benötigten Hörgeschädigte 15 Minuten länger zur Durchführung und beurteilten diese als anstrengender als Hörgesunde (71 % versus 63 %). Patienten mittleren Alters sahen die Durchführbarkeit für Menschen des höheren Lebensalters mit 30 % signifikant (p = 0,02) kritischer als die betroffene Altersgruppe selbst (10 %).

Schlussfolgerung Eine umfassende kognitive Testung älterer Schwerhöriger mit computerbasierten Aufgaben lässt sich problemlos in den klinischen HNO Alltag integrieren und könnte eine wertvolle Ergänzung der audiologischen Diagnostik im Hinblick auf eine bestmögliche Hörrehabilitation darstellen.

Abstract

Introduction Due to the demographic changes neurocognition has become an important issue also in the field of hearing rehabilitation.

Background The present study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a neurocognitive test using computer based tasks with regard to the elderly with and without hearing loss and its practicability for the daily clinical ENT setting.

Patients 171 patients of both genders with normal hearing or a profound hearing loss were enrolled in the study: 90 middleaged persons were between 50 and 64 years (57.0 ± 4.5 years) and 81 elderly persons 65 years and older (72.5 ± 5.4).

Method A set of computer-based neurocognitive tasks with only visual instructions covering attention, processing speed, short- and longterm memory as well as executive functions was applied. A presession under the supervision of a trained assistant was included.

Results All patients were capable to complete the assessment by themselves regardless of age and hearing status, however the hearing impaired required 15 minutes more to finish the pretest and reported about a higher level of effort than normal hearing subjects (71 % versus 63 %). Interestingly 90 % of the older individuals claimed the test to fit with all ages, whereas 30 % of the middleaged participants remained skeptical (p = 0.02).

Conclusion The presented neurocognitive assessment might be a useful instrument which can be easily included into the daily clinical ENT. It may give important hints to the otolaryngologist in order to develop the most effective hearing rehabilitation strategy.

Schlüsselwörter

Kognition - computerbasierte Testung - Schwerhörigkeit - Audiologie - Altern

Key words

cognition - computer based testing - hearing impairment - audiology - aging
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Wilson RS, Beckett LA, Barnes LL. et al. Individual differences in rates of change in cognitive abilities of older persons. Psychology and Aging 2002; 17 (02) 179-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Haynes BI, Bauermeister S, Bunce D. A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Associations Between Reaction Time Intraindividual Variability and Age-Related Cognitive Decline or Impairment, Dementia, and Mortality. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2017; 23 (05) 431-445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Yesavage JA, O’Hara R, Kraemer H. et al. Modeling the prevalence and incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. J Psychiatr Res 2002; 36 (05) 281-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Olson AD. Options for auditory training for adults with hearing loss. Semin Hear 2015; 36 (04) 284-295
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Erlanger DM, Kaushik T, Broshek D. et al. Development and validation of a web-based screening tool for monitoring cognitive status. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2002; 17 (05) 458-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tornatore JB, Hill E, Laboff JA. et al. Self-administered screening for mild cognitive impairment: Initial validation of a computerized test battery. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences 2005; 17 (01) 98-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Morris JC, Heyman A, Mohs RC. et al. The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD). Part I. Clinical and neuropsychological assessment of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1989; 39 (09) 1159-1165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Fliessbach K, Hoppe C, Schlegel U. et al. NeuroCogFX-eine computergestützte neuropsychologische Testbatterie für Verlaufsuntersuchungen bei neurologischen Erkrankungen. Fortschritte der Neurologie· Psychiatrie 2006; 74 (11) 643-650
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dreisörner T, Georgiadis J. et al. Sensitivität und Spezifität computergestützter Verfahren zur Diagnostik von Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit-/Hyperaktivitätsstörung (ADHS) im Kindes-und Jugendalter. Die Testbatterie zur Aufmerksamkeitsprüfung (TAP) und Testbatterie zur Aufmerksamkeitsprüfung für Kinder (KITAP). Empirische Sonderpädagogik 2011; 3 (01) 3-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Randolph C, Tierney MC, Mohr E. et al. The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS): Preliminary clinical validity. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 1998; 20 (03) 310-319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bedirian V. et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53 (04) 695-699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kalbe E, Kessler J, Calabrese P. et al. DemTect: A new, sensitive cognitive screening test to support the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and early dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004; 19 (02) 136-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12 (03) 189-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Maruff P, Thomas E, Cysique L. et al. Validity of the CogState brief battery: Relationship to standardized tests and sensitivity to cognitive impairment in mild traumatic brain injury, schizophrenia, and AIDS dementia complex. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 2009; 24 (02) 165-178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lin VYW, Chung J, Callahan BL. et al. Development of cognitive screening test for the severely hearing impaired: Hearing-impaired MoCA. Laryngoscope 2017; 127 (Suppl. 01) S4-S11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wild-Wall N, Gajewski P, Falkenstein M. Kognitive Leistungsfähigkeit älterer Arbeitnehmer. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2009; 42 (04) 299-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wild-Wall N, Falkenstein M, Gajewski PD. Age-related differences in working memory performance in a 2-back task. Front Psychol 2011; 2: 186
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Falkenstein M, Hoormann J, Hohnsbein J. ERP components in Go/Nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition. Acta psychologica 1999; 101 (02) 267-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Brickenkamp R. Test d2: Aufmerksamkeits-Belastungs-Test. Göttingen: Hogrefe Verl. für Psychologie; 1962
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Helmstaedter C, Lendt M, Lux S. Verbaler Lern- und Merkfähigkeitstest: VLMT; Manual. Göttingen: Beltz-Test; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Kirchner WK. Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1958; 55 (04) 352-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 1974; 16 (01) 143-149
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wild-Wall N, Falkenstein M, Hohnsbein J. Flanker interference in young and older participants as reflected in event-related potentials. Brain Res 2008; 1211: 72-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Turner ML, Engle RW. Is working memory capacity task dependent?. Journal of Memory and Language 1989; 28 (02) 127-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Reitan RM. Validity of the Trail Making Test as an Indicator of Organic Brain Damage. Percept Mot Skills 1958; 8 (03) 271-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Thurstone LL. Primary mental abilities. Science 1948; 108 (2813) 585
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Fulton SE, Lister JJ, Bush ALH. et al. Mechanisms of the Hearing–Cognition Relationship. Semin Hear 2015; 36 (03) 140-149
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lin FR, Metter EJ, O’Brien RJ. et al. Hearing loss and incident dementia. Arch Neurol 2011; 68 (02) 214-220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Fortunato S, Forli F, Guglielmi V. et al. A review of new insights on the association between hearing loss and cognitive decline in ageing. Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica: organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale 2016; 36 (03) 155-166
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Mick P, Kawachi I, Lin FR. The association between hearing loss and social isolation in older adults. Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery 2014; 150 (03) 378-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Lin FR, Ferrucci L, Metter EJ. et al. Hearing loss and cognition in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Neuropsychology 2011; 25 (06) 763-770
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Völter C, Götze L, Falkenstein M. et al. Application of a computer-based neurocognitive assessment battery in the elderly with and without hearing loss. CIA 2017; 12: 1681-1690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Cosetti MK, Pinkston JB, Flores JM. et al. Neurocognitive testing and cochlear implantation: insights into performance in older adults. Clin Interv Aging 2016; 11: 603-613
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Mosnier I, Bebear J-P, Marx M. et al. Improvement of cognitive function after cochlear implantation in elderly patients. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 141 (05) 442-450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Rudner M, Ronnberg J, Lunner T. Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol 2011; 22 (03) 156-167
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Ronnberg J, Lunner T, Zekveld A. et al. The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci 2013; 7: 31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Salthouse TA. Aging and measures of processing speed. Biol Psychol 2000; 54 (01) 35-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Verhaeghen P. Aging and executive control: Reports of a demise greatly exaggerated. Current directions in psycholoical science 2011; 20 (03) 174-180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Braver TS, Barch DM, Keys BA. et al. Context processing in older adults: Evidence for a theory relating cognitive control to neurobiology in healthy aging. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2001; 130 (04) 746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Reuter-Lorenz PA, Jonides J, Smith EE. et al. Age differences in the frontal lateralization of verbal and spatial working memory revealed by PET. J Cogn Neurosci 2000; 12 (01) 174-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Meister H, Schreitmuller S, Grugel L. et al. Cognitive resources related to speech recognition with a competing talker in young and older listeners. Neuroscience 2013; 232: 74-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Buchner A, Gartner L. Technische Entwicklungen bei Cochleaimplantaten: Stand der Technik. HNO 2017; 65 (04) 276-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Akeroyd MA. Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol 2008; 47 Suppl 2: S53-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Moberly AC, Bates C, Harris MS. et al. The Enigma of Poor Performance by Adults With Cochlear Implants. Otology & neurotology 2016; 37 (10) 1522-1528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Classon E, Löfkvist U, Rudner M. et al. Verbal fluency in adults with postlingually acquired hearing impairment. Speech, Language and Hearing 2014; 17 (02) 88-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Souza PE, Arehart KH, Shen J. et al. Working memory and intelligibility of hearing-aid processed speech. Front Psychol 2015; 6: 526
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Moberly AC, Houston DM, Castellanos I. Non-auditory neurocognitive skills contribute to speech recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 2016; 1 (06) 154-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Anderson S, Kraus N. Auditory Training: Evidence for Neural Plasticity in Older Adults. Perspect Hear Hear Disord Res Res Diagn 2013; 17: 37-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Parbery-Clark A. et al. A dynamic auditory-cognitive system supports speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Hear Res 2013; 300: 18-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Shen J, Anderson MC, Arehart KH. et al. Using Cognitive Screening Tests in Audiology. Am J Audiol 2016; 1-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Wild K, Howieson D, Webbe F. et al. Status of computerized cognitive testing in aging: a systematic review. Alzheimers Dement 2008; 4 (06) 428-437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Ng CH. Motivation among older adults in learning computing technologies: A grounded model. Educ Gerontol 2007; 34 (01) 1-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Collerton J, Collerton D, Arai Y. et al. A comparison of computerized and pencil-and-paper tasks in assessing cognitive function in community-dwelling older people in the Newcastle 85 + Pilot Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007; 55 (10) 1630-1635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Statistisches Bundesamt W. Die Generation 65 + in Deutschland.: Anlässlich der Pressekonferenz des Statistischen Bundesamtes am 29. Juli 2015. 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Fazeli PL, Ross LA, Vance DE. et al. The Relationship Between Computer Experience and Computerized Cognitive Test Performance Among Older Adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 2013; 68 (03) 337-346
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Lin FR, Yaffe K, Xia J. et al. Hearing loss and cognitive decline in older adults. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173 (04) 293-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Raymond PD, Hinton-Bayre AD, Radel M. et al. Test–retest norms and reliable change indices for the MicroCog Battery in a healthy community population over 50 years of age. Clin Neuropsychol 2006; 20 (02) 261-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Lagana L. Enhancing the Attitudes and Self-Efficacy of Older Adults Toward Computers and the Internet: Results of a Pilot Study. Educ Gerontol 2008; 34 (09) 831
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Marquié JC, Jourdan-Boddaert L, Huet N. Do older adults underestimate their actual computer knowledge?. Behaviour & Information Technology 2010; 21 (04) 273-280
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Trzepacz PT, Hochstetler H, Wang S. et al. Relationship between the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mini-mental State Examination for assessment of mild cognitive impairment in older adults. BMC Geriatr 2015; 15: 107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Jorgensen LE, Palmer CV, Pratt S. et al. The Effect of Decreased Audibility on MMSE Performance: A Measure Commonly Used for Diagnosing Dementia. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (04) 311-323
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Dupuis K, Pichora-Fuller MK, Chasteen AL. et al. Effects of hearing and vision impairments on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 2015; 22 (04) 413-437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar