Live data from Hacker News

Hearing aids slow cognitive decline in people at high risk

nih.gov

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Hearing aids slow cognitive decline in people at high risk

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you advocating

I'm advocating that people do studies with randomized interventions—an approach that is capable of proving causation—and not being satisfied with purely observational studies that look at correlations, which are often hopelessly confounded and can't distinguish between "X causes Y" and "Z causes both X and Y". I was pleasantly surprised to find that this study was of the first type rather than the second.

I completely agree that randomized intervention studies have enormous value when compared to observational studies.

In this example, it would be particularly hard to establish a causative relationship that said "hearing aids inhibit dementia" or "hearing loss causes dementia" if instead all you had was a population, some of whom used hearing aids, and some of whom had varying levels of hearing abilities, and some of whom developed dementia. In all the noise, you'd be very fortunate to find that a control group of people with undiagnosed (how would you ever measure that!) hearing loss who failed to get hearing aids had cognitive decline in excess of that experienced by those who did get hearing aids. Here, instead, the intervention is "the coin flip said you're in the hearing aid group/you're in the health education group."

Of course, the murky ethical issue here is that this randomized intervention resulted in some people having poorer hearing, perhaps permanently (use it or lose it!) and some people having more rapid cognitive decline. This randomized intervention directly caused real suffering. Nearly 125 people in the heart-health group with increased risk of dementia onset were assigned to a study that just received health education. For at least three years, they had reduced hearing and a reduced ability to communicate, and after three years, they had significantly greater cognitive decline.

Caution is good, but in general I have no problem personally with the 'shut up and multiply' application of ethics in this case. There are 8 billion people all getting old, and more being born every day who will eventually get older. It's very important as a species to know that hearing aids slow cognitive decline, and if that meant that 119 people were placed at a slightly increased medical risk, 119 divided by 8 billion is a pretty small number, and 7.999999881 billion who are now more likely to get hearing aids and have slower cognitive decline is a lot of positive utility. But it wasn't me or my mom who can no longer hear and who is suffering from dementia, and some will draw a hard line and say that you can't perform studies that will put even a small number of people at increased risk.

We should be careful to evaluate merit and limit harm, but we should perform more randomized intervention studies.

Re: Hearing aids slow cognitive decline in people at high risk

#42
Fun fact: auditory signals are the fastest path to human reflexes, way faster than vision. I forget the exact numbers, but visual reactions are on the order of 300ms whereas auditory reactions are sub 100 IIRC. Feel free to correct me if anyone can find numbers.

So all those blind fights in the matrix cartoons or daredevil are sill, but not quite as silly as you might have expected. There is actually a significant reaction time advantage. But good look hearing a sword swing at your face vs your leg lol

Re: Hearing aids slow cognitive decline in people at high risk

#43

Fun fact: auditory signals are the fastest path to human reflexes, way faster than vision. I forget the exact numbers, but visual reactions are on the order of 300ms whereas auditory reactions are sub 100 IIRC. Feel free to correct me if anyone can find numbers. So all those blind fights in the matrix cartoons or daredevil are sill, but not quite as silly as you might have expected. There is actually a significant re…

There is a difference, but not that dramatic. You can try it on yourself here - https://playback.fm/audio-reaction-time

Re: Hearing aids slow cognitive decline in people at high risk

#45
post #43

Fun fact: auditory signals are the fastest path to human reflexes, way faster than vision. I forget the exact numbers, but visual reactions are on the order of 300ms whereas auditory reactions are sub 100 IIRC. Feel free to correct me if anyone can find numbers. So all those blind fights in the matrix cartoons or daredevil are sill, but not quite as silly as you might have expected. There is actually a significant re…

There is a difference, but not that dramatic. You can try it on yourself here - https://playback.fm/audio-reaction-time

There's a lot more between the actions there image to display, mouse to computer that have nothing to do with internal meatbag reactions. Especially when we're already measuring in milliseconds.

Re: Hearing aids slow cognitive decline in people at high risk

#47
post #44

As social isolation was associated with about a 50% increased risk of dementia this isn't surprising. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25663/social-isola...

Makes you wonder if social isolation is a cause of dementia, thinking less means less brain stimulation.

Re: Hearing aids slow cognitive decline in people at high risk

#48
post #7

My spouse is an audiologist, and yes, she has told me (and of course her patients) this is very much a "use it or lose it" type of deal.

Use what or lose it? Hearing? Cognition?

Most likely hearing, but that’s strongly related to cognition.

Re: Hearing aids slow cognitive decline in people at high risk

#49
Deaf-infant cochlear implants can make a significant difference in IQ (less language audio input affects IQ if not mitigated ASAP: a principle that extends from deaf to normal hearing children). With this principle in mind, it isn't surprising that hearing aids slow cognitive decline later in life. Though, I'm not implying that it may be a 1:1 mechanism.

Re: Hearing aids slow cognitive decline in people at high risk

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this take seems popular, this isn't a good way of looking at it because, in my experience, it seems to lead to the dismissal of good evidence or it suggests that we can't build confident causal inferences without a certain study. For example, RCTs are also observational, and it's incorrect to say they can uniquely detect causation. I think a more helpful way to look at research is to look for a convergence of o…

> RCTs are also observational The key phrase is "purely observational". Now, occasionally you end up with a "natural experiment" in which some accident has effectively done the randomization for you—specifically, where the mechanism that puts people in the treatment group vs the control group is something you can be very confident has no other causal interactions. This was a good example: https://twitter.com/PGeldset…

And it'll also include some number of alcoholics in recovery who are currently consuming no alcohol, but who's bodies have hard years on them, and you'd expect to do worse than overall population average in outcomes.
Post reply on HN