Objectives: The aim of this study was to validate a novel iPad-based rapid hearing loss screening tool (SHOEBOX QuickTest) in individuals with cognitive impairment.Design: Cross-sectional validation study.Setting: Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.Subjects and Methods: Twenty-five individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild dementia from the Bruyère Memory Program were included in this study. The study consisted of two components: (1) SHOEBOX QuickTest hearing screener and (2) a conventional hearing test (pure tone audiometry).Measurements: Hearing was assessed at 1,000, 2,000, and 4,000 Hz separately for each ear. The agreement between hearing ability groupings (good vs. reduced) from conventional hearing test and SHOEBOX QuickTest was determined. Specifically, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, as well as alignment between conventional thresholds and hearing threshold ranges.Results: An overall accuracy of 84% was observed for SHOEBOX QuickTest, and a sensitivity and specificity of 100 and 66.7%, respectively. 72% ([95% CI], 60.0–84.1%) of conventional audiometry thresholds were within the pre-established 10 dB SHOEBOX QuickTest.Conclusion: SHOEBOX QuickTest is a valid hearing loss screening tool for individuals with cognitive impairment. Implementing this iPad-based screening tool in memory clinics could not only aid in the timely diagnosis of hearing loss, but also assist physicians in providing a better assessment of cognitive impairment by ruling out hearing loss as a confounding variable.

Background Proprioceptive acuity and impairments in proprioceptively guided reaches have not been comprehensively examined in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Objective To examine proprioceptive acuity in people with MS who self-report and who do not self-report upper limb (UL) impairment, and to determine how people with MS reach proprioceptive targets. Methods Twenty-four participants with MS were recruited into two groups based on self-reported UL impairment: MS-R (i.e. report UL impairment; n  =  12) vs. MS-NR (i.e. do not report UL impairment; n  =  12). Proprioception was assessed using ipsilateral and contralateral robotic proprioceptive matching tasks. Results Participants in the MS-R group demonstrated worse proprioceptive acuity compared to the MS-NR group on the ipsilateral and contralateral robotic matching tasks. Analyses of reaches to proprioceptive targets further revealed that participants in the MS-R group exhibited deficits in movement planning, as demonstrated by greater errors at peak velocity in the contralateral matching task in comparison to the MS-NR group. Conclusion Our findings suggest that people with MS who self-report UL impairment demonstrate worse proprioceptive acuity, as well as poorer movement planning in comparison to people with MS who do not report UL impairment.

No abstract