Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Mar 16;11(6):1007.
doi: 10.3390/cells11061007.

Central Auditory Functions of Alzheimer's Disease and Its Preclinical Stages: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hadeel Y Tarawneh  1   2   3 , Holly K Menegola  1   2 , Andrew Peou  1   3 , Hanadi Tarawneh  1   2 , Dona M P Jayakody  1   2   4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Central Auditory Functions of Alzheimer's Disease and Its Preclinical Stages: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hadeel Y Tarawneh et al. Cells. .

Abstract

In 2020, 55 million people worldwide were living with dementia, and this number is projected to reach 139 million in 2050. However, approximately 75% of people living with dementia have not received a formal diagnosis. Hence, they do not have access to treatment and care. Without effective treatment in the foreseeable future, it is essential to focus on modifiable risk factors and early intervention. Central auditory processing is impaired in people diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its preclinical stages and may manifest many years before clinical diagnosis. This study systematically reviewed central auditory processing function in AD and its preclinical stages using behavioural central auditory processing tests. Eleven studies met the full inclusion criteria, and seven were included in the meta-analyses. The results revealed that those with mild cognitive impairment perform significantly worse than healthy controls within channel adaptive tests of temporal response (ATTR), time-compressed speech test (TCS), Dichotic Digits Test (DDT), Dichotic Sentence Identification (DSI), Speech in Noise (SPIN), and Synthetic Sentence Identification-Ipsilateral Competing Message (SSI-ICM) central auditory processing tests. In addition, this analysis indicates that participants with AD performed significantly worse than healthy controls in DDT, DSI, and SSI-ICM tasks. Clinical implications are discussed in detail.

Keywords: central-auditory processing; dementia; hearing loss.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow chart of search results.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of standard mean difference and overall (pooled) estimate of studies investigating adaptive tests of temporal resolution (ATTR) that compared a mild cognitive impairment (MCI) group to a control group. (A) Analysis of within-channel ATTR, (B) analysis of across-channel ATTR. Notes: Z = Z score; I2 = percentage of heterogeneity; Q-value = Cochrane’s Q; df = degrees of freedom. The horizontal lines represent the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each computed standard mean difference. Weights are from the random-effects analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of standard mean difference and overall (pooled) estimate of studies investigating adaptive tests of temporal resolution (ATTR) that compared a mild cognitive impairment (MCI) group to a control group. (A) Analysis of within-channel ATTR, (B) analysis of across-channel ATTR. Notes: Z = Z score; I2 = percentage of heterogeneity; Q-value = Cochrane’s Q; df = degrees of freedom. The horizontal lines represent the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each computed standard mean difference. Weights are from the random-effects analysis.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of standard mean difference and overall (pooled) estimate of studies investigating auditory fusion test (ATF) that compared a mild cognitive impairment (MCI) group to a control group. Notes: Z = Z score; I2 = percentage of heterogeneity; Q-value = Cochrane’s Q; df = degrees of freedom. The horizontal lines represent the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each computed standard mean difference. Weights are from the random-effects analysis.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot of standard mean difference and overall (pooled) estimate of studies investigating dichotic digits test (DDT). (A) Analysis of DDT between the mild cognitive impairment (MCI) group and the control group, (B) analysis of DDT between the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) group and the control group. Notes: Z = Z score; I2 = percentage of heterogeneity; Q-value = Cochrane’s Q; df = degrees of freedom. The horizontal lines represent the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each computed standard mean difference. Weights are from the random-effects analysis.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot of standard mean difference and overall (pooled) estimate of studies investigating dichotic sentence identification (DSI) test. (A) Analysis of DSI between the mild cognitive impairment (MCI) group and the control group; (B) analysis of DSI between the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) group and the control group. Notes: Z = Z score; I2 = percentage of heterogeneity; Q-value = Cochrane’s Q; df = degrees of freedom. The horizontal lines represent the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each computed standard mean difference. Weights are from the random-effects analysis.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot of standard mean difference and overall (pooled) estimate of studies investigating speech perception in noise (SPIN) test that compared a mild cognitive impairment (MCI) group to a control group. Notes: Z = Z score; I2 = percentage of heterogeneity; Q-value = Cochrane’s Q; df = degrees of freedom. The horizontal lines represent the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each computed standard mean difference. Weights are from the random-effects analysis.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Forest plot of standard mean difference and overall (pooled) estimate of studies investigating synthetic sentence identification-ipsilateral competing message (SSI-ICM) test. (A) Analysis of SSI-ICM between the mild cognitive impairment (MCI) group and the control group; (B) analysis of SSI-ICM between the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) group and the control group. Notes: Z = Z score; I2 = percentage of heterogeneity; Q-value = Cochrane’s Q; df = degrees of freedom. The horizontal lines represent the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each computed standard mean difference. Weights are from the random-effects analysis.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Forest plot of standard mean difference and overall (pooled) estimate of studies investigating time-compressed speech (TCS) test (average of 45% and 65% compression) that compare a mild cognitive impairment (MCI) group to a control group. Notes: Z = Z score; I2 = percentage of heterogeneity; Q-value = Cochrane’s Q; df = degrees of freedom. The horizontal lines represent the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each computed standard mean difference. Weights are from the random-effects analysis.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Alzheimer’s Association Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement. 2020;16:391–460. doi: 10.1002/alz.12068. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Prince M., Wimo A., Guerchet M., Ali G.C., Wu Y.T., Prina M. World Alzheimer Report 2015—The Global Impact of Dementia: An Analysis of Prevalence, Incidence, Cost and Trends. Alzheimer’s Disease International; London, UK: 2015.
    1. Prince M., Bryce R., Albanese E., Wimo A., Ribeiro W., Ferri C.P. The global prevalence of dementia: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Alzheimers Dement. J. Alzheimers Assoc. 2013;9:63–75.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2012.11.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dubois B., Feldman H.H., Jacova C., Hampel H., Molinuevo J.L., Blennow K., DeKosky S.T., Gauthier S., Selkoe D., Bateman R., et al. Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s disease: The IWG-2 criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13:614–629. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70090-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Purves D., Augustine G., Fitzpatrick D., Hall W., LaMantia A.S., White L. In: Neuroscience. 5th ed. Mooney R., Platt M., editors. Sinauer Associates; Sunderland, MA, USA: 2012. p. 15.