Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

The effect of hearing aids on cognitive function: A systematic review

Fig 2

Representation of cognitive tests divided into cognitive domains for studies with control group.

A: Mulrow 1990 (A1: SPMSQ); B: Tesch-Romer 1997 (B1: DSST, B2: Digit letter test B3: Spot-a-word, B4: Letter ā€˜sā€™ test, B5: Naming animals); C: van Hooren 2005 (C1*: SCWT, C2: LDST, C3: CST, C4: VVLT-immediate and -delayed, C5: Verbal fluency test); D: Obuchi 2011 (D1: dichotic listening test, D2: WAIS-R); E: Choi 2011 (E1: VVLT total, E2: Recognition score, E3: Latency score); F: Doherty 2015 (F1: Listening span test, F2: N-back test);G: Dawes 2015 (G1: MMSE, G2: DSST, G3: Trail making test A, G4: Trail making test B, G5: Auditory verbal learning, G6: Verbal fluency test); H: Karawani 2018 (H1: Working memory, H2: Flanker, H3: Processing speed); I: Brewster 2020 (I1: RBANS-Immediate Memory, I2: RBANS-Delayed Memory, I3: RBANS-Language, I4: RBANS-Attention, I5: RBANS-Visuospatial/Constructional, I6: Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test) * C1 showed significant improvement in favor of control group.

Fig 2

doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261207.g002