Table 4 Included studies sorted by movement task

Walking studies

 1.

Gorecka et al., 2018 [39]

Cross-sectional study

the aim was to evaluate possible asymmetric effects of idchotic listening in a dual-task paradigm during walking overground in right-handed healthy older adults and secondly, to assess the moderating effects of hearing loss on this experimental situation

Walking + audio-spatial stimulus detection (attention; Bergen dichotic listening paradigm)

N Young-Old = 38 (26 female, 12 mild hearing-impaired)

N Old-Old = 40 (24 female, 30 mild hearing-impaired)

Young-old: 65.4 ± 2.9

Old-Old: 76.4 ± 4.8

PTA (0.5,1,2, 4 kHz of worse ear) > 24 dB HL

Pace

Step length (cm)

Gait speed (m/s)

Stride length (cm)

Base of support

Step width (cm)

Rhythm

n.r

Phases

n.r

Variability (%CV)

Step length (%CV)

Gait speed (%CV)

Stride length (%CV)

Step width (%CV)

Bilateral gait parameters young-old (YO, 32% hearing-impaired) vs. old-old (OO, 75% hearing-impaired)

Gait speed

YO > OO

Stride length

YO > OO

Step length (%CV)

YO < OO

group effects remained after controlling for hearing ability

 2.

Gorecka et al., 2021 [40]

Cross-sectional study

The main goal was to determine whether spontaneous vs. volitional focus of attention evoked quantitative and qualitative impairments on gait in MCI individuals as compared to healthy controls

Walking + audio-spatial stimulus detection (attention; Bergen dichotic listening paradigm)

N OA = 52 (28 female, 28 mild-hearing impaired)

N MCI = 43 (23 female)

OA: 70.90 ± 7.35

MCI: 71.19 ± 8.75

PTA (0.5,1,2, 4 kHz of worse ear) > 19.5 dB HL

Pace

Step length (cm)

Gait speed (m/s)

Base of support

Step width (cm)

Rhythm

n.r

Phases

n.r

Variability (%CV)

Step length (%CV)

Gait speed (%CV)

Step width (%CV)

Bilateral gait parameters normal hearing vs. hearing impaired (unpublished additional analysis results provided by Gorecka et al.):

Gait speed (m/s)

normal hearing > hearing impaired (in all conditions)

Step width (cm)

normal hearing < hearing impaired (in all conditions)

Step length (%CV) normal hearing < hearing impaired (in all conditions)

Gait speed (%CV) normal hearing < hearing impaired (in all conditions)

 3.

Lau et al., 2016 [42]

Cross-sectional study

to investigate the effect of age-related hearing loss (ARHL) on word recognition during multitasking within a setting that is more ecologically valid

Walking + audio-spatial stimulus detection (attention; Bergen dichotic listening paradigm)

N OA = 8

(6 female)

N OA hearing loss = 8

(5 female)

OA: 69.9 ± 5.4

OA hearing loss: 73.3 ± 8.4

PTA (0.5,1,2, 3 kHz of both ears) > 25 dB HL and hearing aid users

Pace

Step length (m)

Gait speed (m/s)

Base of support

Step width (m)

Rhythm

Cadence (steps/min)

Stride time (s)

Phases

n.r

Variability

Step length (%CV)

Gait speed (%CV)

Step width(%CV)

Cadence (%CV)

Stride time (%CV)

Variability in degree (°) / Root mean Square (RMS)

Head angles (°/RMS])

Trunk angles (°/RMS)

Head/trunk pitch (°/RMS)

Gait parameters normal hearing vs. hearing impaired:

Stride time (%CV) normal hearing < hearing impaired (in all conditions)

Kinematic Dual-Task Costs:

Significant Dual-tasks costs differences in both groups: Mean head pitch; RMS head pitch; RMS trunk pitch

Significant Dual-tasks costs differences only in HL group: Mean trunk pitch

 4.

Wollesen et al., 2021 [43]

Inter-ventional study

to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a multitask training to improve walking performance of older adults with moderate to severe hearing impairment. Moreover, assessing if the program improves walking capacity and multitasking walking performance

Walking + Inhibition (Stroop task)

N OA hearing impairment = 6 (1 female)

OA hearing impairment: 81 ± 6.5

PTA for moderate 41-60 dB HL and severe > 60 dB HL

Pace

Step length (cm)

Gait speed (cm/s)

Walking Capacity (m; six-minute walking test [6MWT] distance)

Base of support

n.r

Rhythm

n.r

Phases

Double support time

Variability

n.r

Post-intervention results in comparison to baseline (pre-intervention):

Walking Capacity (m) ↑

Walking speed ↑ (during the dual-cognitive)

step length ↑ (in participants who completed all sessions)

 5.

Wollesen et al., 2018 [29]

Cross-sectional study

The aim of this study was to identify DT and TT effects on walking speed, step length, and cadence in adults with hearing impairment, previous falls, and physical limitations

Walking + Inhibition (Stroop task)

N Normal Hearing = 21 (10 female)

N Mild Impairment = 29 (11 female)

N Moderate/ Severe Impairment = 23 (12 female)

Normal Hearing: 64 ± 14

Mild Impairment: 71 ± 10

Moderate/ Severe Impairment: 78 ± 12

mild: PTA (0.5–4 kHz) > 25 and < 40 dBHL, and moderate/severe: PTA(0.5– 4 kHz) ≥ 40 dBHL in the better ear

Pace

Step length (m)

Gait speed (m/s)

Base of support

n.r

Rhythm

Cadence (steps/min)

Phases

n.r

Variability

n.r

Gait parameters with regards to hearing competence / hearing vs. hearing impaired:

Walking speed and Cadence ↓ (with increased hearing impairment)

Balance studies

 1.

Bruce et al., 2019 [30]

Inter-ventional study

compare the efficacy of Simultaneous and Sequential multimodal training intervention formats

Balance + working memory task (n-back)

N = 42 (26 females)

N OA hearing loss = 13

OA: 68.05 ± 4.65

PTA (0.5,1,2, 3 kHz of both ears) between 25 and 40 dB HL

Ellipse area (mm²) during computerized dynamic posturography

Balance- and cognitive performance at baseline:

Groups did not differ in ST at baseline

Post-intervention results in comparison to baseline (pre-intervention) of sequential and simultaneous training on working memory task:

Sequential OA group ↑ (in comparison to simultaneous OA)

Data showed a trend that the ARHL group improved post training regardless of format

 2.

Bruce et al., 2017 [38]

Cross-sectional study

investigate the cognitive compensation hypothesis, wherein decreased auditory and motor functioning are compensated by the recruitment of cognitive resources

Balance + working memory task (n-back)

N = 87 (60 female)

N YA = 29 (25 female)

N OA = 26 (20 female)

N OA hearing loss = 32 (15 female)

YA: 21.83 ± 3.01

OA: 65.19 ± 3.26

OA hearing loss: 70.75 ± 5.76

PTA (0.5,1,2, 3 kHz of both ears) between 25 and 40 dB HL

Angular displacement

Ankle Plantarflexion amplitude (postural sway)

Hip extension amplitude (postural sway)

Effect of attentional load in noise condition (dual task noise vs single task noise):

Cognitive accuracy in ARHL ↓ (during dual task noise)

Dual tasks costs in ARHL ↑ (in comparison to YA)

 3.

Kowa-lewski et al., 2018 [41]

Cross-sectional study

aimed to answer two questions:

1) does hearing loss negatively affect the ability to regain balance as reflected by an increased number of steps needed after a perturbation, and

2) do hearing aids reverse this effect and improve balance control, reflected by a decrease in number of steps needed to regain balance

Balance + working memory/ stimulus detection (Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-In-Noise (BKB-SIN) test)

N YA = 20 (9 female)

N OA = 20 (15 female)

N OA hearing loss = 19 (8 or 9 females; 45% out of 19)

YA: 27.2 ± 3.0

OA: 68.7 ± 4.3

OA hearing loss: 73.2 ± 9.1

Hearing loss diagnosis

Number of steps to regain balance

Postural performance with regards to balance parameters during dual task (BKB-SIN + perturbation):

Number of steps ↑ (in older adults with hearing loss)

Number of steps on average of all conditions ↑ (in older adults with hearing loss in comparison to young and older adults with normal hearing)

Auditory performance:

BKB-SIN scores on average of all conditions ↑ in older adults with hearing loss (indicating worse performance of older adults with hearing loss in comparison to young and older adults with normal hearing)