↓ Skip to main content

Presbycusis: do we have a third ear?

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Presbycusis: do we have a third ear?
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, November 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.bjorl.2015.12.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luis Roque Reis, Pedro Escada

Abstract

Age-related hearing changes are the most frequent cause of sensorineural hearing loss in adults. In the literature no studies exist concerning the importance of speechreading in individuals with presbycusis. Equally, no such studies have been carried out with speakers of the Portuguese (Portugal) language. To evaluate whether the intelligibility of words in presbycusis is improved by speechreading, in such a way that looking at the interlocutor's face while he is talking functions like a "third ear", and to determine the statistical relevance of the intelligibility improvement by speechreading. Eleven individuals (22 ears) with bilateral and symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss compatible with presbycusis were evaluated. The subjects were aged between 57 and 82 years, with an average of 70±11.51 years and median of 69.5 years. A complete medical and audiological profile of each patient was created and all patients were submitted to a vocal audiogram, without and with observation of the audiologist's face. A descriptive and analytical statistical analysis was performed (Shapiro-Wilk and t pairs tests) adopting the significance level of 0.05 (5%). We noticed better performance in intelligibility with speechreading. The p-value was zero (p<0.05), so we rejected the null hypothesis, showing that there was statistically significant difference with speechreading; the same conclusion was obtained by analysis of the confidence intervals. Individuals with presbycusis in this study, performed better on spoken word intelligibility when the hearing of those words was associated with speechreading. This phenomenon helps in such a way that observation of the interlocutor's face works like a "third ear".

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 38%
Student > Master 2 25%
Other 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 25%
Psychology 1 13%
Unknown 2 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2021.
All research outputs
#6,007,301
of 19,152,115 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
#76
of 480 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,357
of 221,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,152,115 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 480 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 221,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.