Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT OF CHILDREN AT RISK OF
CENTRAL AUDITORY PROCESSING DISORDER WITHOUT
READING DEFICITS
1
Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore-06, Karnataka, India
Publication date: 2013-12-31
Corresponding author
Prawin Kumar
Prawin Kumar, Lecturer in Audiology, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, Mysore-570006, Karnataka, India, Phone No: +91 9886833741, Fax: +91821 2510515, e-mail: prawin_audio@rediffmail.com
Prawin Kumar, Lecturer in Audiology, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, Mysore-570006, Karnataka, India, Phone No: +91 9886833741, Fax: +91821 2510515, e-mail: prawin_audio@rediffmail.com
J Hear Sci 2013;3(4):49-55
KEYWORDS
central auditory processing disordersgap detection testpitch pattern testspeech in noise testdichotic CV testmasking level difference testearly reading skills
ABSTRACT
Background:
Auditory processing abilities in children with dyslexia and reading disabilities have been widely studied using various behavioral and electrophysiological measures. However explorations in children with (C)APD without reading disability are lacking, and the present study was designed to fill that gap.
Material and Methods:
The study comprised an experimental group and a control group, the former having 15 children at risk of (C)APD without reading difficulties and the latter 15 typically developing children. Behavioral tests for (C)APD were administered to participants in both groups, and included the gap detection test (GDT), pitch pattern test (PPT), dichotic consonant vowel test (DCV), speech perception in noise (SPIN), and masking level difference (MLD) test.
Results:
Children who were at risk of (C)APD without reading deficit displayed higher thresholds in GDT and gained poorer scores on PPT as well as SPIN when compared to the group of typically developing children. However, the performance on MLD and DCV were comparable between the groups.
Conclusions:
The present study suggests a combination of GDT, PPT, and SPIN as a possible sensitive tool in clinics for indicating central auditory deficits in children at risk of (C)APD without reading deficits. DCV and MLD were not sensitive.
Auditory processing abilities in children with dyslexia and reading disabilities have been widely studied using various behavioral and electrophysiological measures. However explorations in children with (C)APD without reading disability are lacking, and the present study was designed to fill that gap.
Material and Methods:
The study comprised an experimental group and a control group, the former having 15 children at risk of (C)APD without reading difficulties and the latter 15 typically developing children. Behavioral tests for (C)APD were administered to participants in both groups, and included the gap detection test (GDT), pitch pattern test (PPT), dichotic consonant vowel test (DCV), speech perception in noise (SPIN), and masking level difference (MLD) test.
Results:
Children who were at risk of (C)APD without reading deficit displayed higher thresholds in GDT and gained poorer scores on PPT as well as SPIN when compared to the group of typically developing children. However, the performance on MLD and DCV were comparable between the groups.
Conclusions:
The present study suggests a combination of GDT, PPT, and SPIN as a possible sensitive tool in clinics for indicating central auditory deficits in children at risk of (C)APD without reading deficits. DCV and MLD were not sensitive.
REFERENCES (31)
1.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Central auditory processing: Current status of research and implications for clinical practice. Am J Audiol, 1996; 5: 41–54.
2.
Bellis TJ. Assessment and management of central auditory processing disorders in the educational setting. Science to practice: 2nd ed. Clifton Park (NY): Delmar Learning; 2003.
3.
Chermark GD, Musiek FE. Central auditory processing disorders: New perspectives. San Diego; Singular, 1997.
4.
American Academy of Audiology. Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of children and adults with central auditory processing disorders. 2010; Available from: http://www.audiology.org/resou... guidelines8-2010.pdf.
5.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (Central) auditory processing disorders (technical report) 2005. Available from: http://www.asha.org/docs/html/....
6.
King WM, Lombardino LJ, Crandell CC, Leonard CM. Comorbid auditory processing disorder in developmental dyslexia. Ear Hear, 2003; 24(5): 448–56.
7.
Tallal P. Auditory temporal perception, phonics and reading disabilities in children. Brain Lang, 1980; 9(3): 182–98.
8.
Farmer ME, Klein R. Auditory and temporal processing in dyslexic and normal readers. Ann NY Acad Sci, (1993); 14: 339–41.
9.
Walker MM, Shinn JB, Cranford JL, Givens GD, Holbert D. Auditory temporal processing performance of young adults with reading disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2002; 45(3): 598–605.
10.
Iliadou V, Kaprinis S, Kandylis D, Kaprinis GS. Hemispheric laterality assessment with dichotic digits testing in dyslexia and auditory processing disorder. Int J Audiol, 2010; 49(3): 247–52.
11.
Moncrieff DW, Musiek FE. Interaural asymmetries revealed by dichotic listening tests in normal and dyslexic children. J Am Acad of Audiol, 2002; 13(8): 428–37.
12.
Yathiraj A, Mascharanas K. Audiological profile of children with suspected auditory processing disorder. JISHA, 2004; 18: 5–13.
13.
Muthuselvi T, Yathiraj A. Utility of Screening Checklist for Auditory Processing (SCAP) in detecting (C)APD children. Student research at A.I.I.S.H Mysore (article based on dissertation done at AIISH), Part-A, Audiology, 2009; 7: 159–75.
14.
Loomba M. Descriptive analysis of the sequential progression of English reading skills among Indian children. Unpublished dissertation, University of Mysore, Mysore; 1995.
15.
Shivani T. Maturational effect of pitch pattern sequence test. Unpublished independent project, University of Mysore, Mysore; 2003.
16.
Shivaprakash S. GDT: Development of norms. Unpublished independent project, University of Mysore, Mysore; 2003.
17.
Yathiraj A. Dichotic CV test – revised. Developed at Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore; 1999.
18.
Yathiraj A, Vijayalakshmi CS. Phonemically balanced word list. Developed at Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore; 2005.
19.
American National Standard: Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms. New York: American National Standards Institute, Inc., ANSI S3.1 1999; 1999.
20.
Chermak GD, Vonhof MR, Bendel RB, Word identification performance in the presence of competing speech and noise in learning disabled adults. Ear Hear, 1989; 10(2): 90–93.
21.
Hill NI, Bailey PJ, Griffiths YM, Snowling MJ. Frequency acuity and binaural masking release in dyslexic listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 1999; 106(6): 53–58.
22.
Ingelghem VM, Wieringen VA, Wouters J, Vandenbussche E, Onghena P, Ghesquiere P. Psychophysical evidence for a general temporal processing deficit in children with dyslexia. Neuroreport, 2001; 12(16): 3603–7.
23.
Amitay S, Ahissar M, Nelken L. Audiory processing deficits in reading disabled adults. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2002; 3(3): 302–20.
24.
Cameron S, Dillon H. The Listening in Spatialized Noise – Sentences test (LISN-S): comparison to the prototype LISN and results from children with either a suspected (central) auditory processing disorder or a confirmed language disorder. J Am Acad Audiol, 2008; 19(5): 377–91.
25.
Singh S, Kumar P. Electrophysiological and behavioral assessment of temporal processing abilities in children with dyslexia. Dissertation based article. (in press).
26.
Roush J, Tait CA. Binaural fusion, masking level differences and auditory brainstem responses in children with language learning disabilities. Ear Hear, 1984; 5(1): 37–42.
27.
Lynn GE, Gilroy J, Taylor PC, Leiser RP. Binaural maskinglevel differences in neurological disorders. Arch Otolaryngol, 1981; 107(6): 357–62.
28.
Wong PC, Ettlinger M, Sheppard JP, Gunasekera GM, Dhar S. Neuroanatomical characteristics and speech perception in noise in older adults. Ear Hear, 2010; 31: 471–79.
29.
Moncrieff DW, Black JR. Dichotic listening deficits in children with dyslexia. Dyslexia, 2008; 14(1): 54–75.
30.
Billet CR, Bellis TJ. The relationship between brainstem temporal processing and performance on tests of central auditory function in children with reading disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2011; 54: 228–42.
31.
Gupta R, Kumar P. Relationship between speech evoked ALLR and dichotic CV scores in children with dyslexia. Dissertation based article. (in press).
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
